Crosscutting

CROSSCUTTING PROGRAMS
13
3. HOMELAND SECURITy FUNDING ANALySIS

Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires a homeland security funding analysis be incorporated in the Presidents Budget. This analysis addresses
that legislative requirement, and covers the homeland
security funding and activities of all Federal agencies,
not only those carried out by Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), as well as State, local, and private sector
expenditures. Since not all activities carried out by DHS
constitute traditional homeland security funding (e.g. re-
sponse to natural disasters and Coast Guard search and

rescue activities), DHS estimates in this section do not
encompass the entire DHS budget.
In the coming months, future homeland security budgetary priorities will be informed by the comprehensive
National Security Strategy of the Obama Administration,
the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and other
related efforts. One principle that will remain constant
Table 31. Homeland SecuriTy Funding by agency

(budget authority in millions of dollars)
Agency
2008
Supplemental/
Emergency
2008
Enacted
2009
Supplemental/
Emergency
2009
Enacted
2010
Request
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Office of the President
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Office of Personnel Management
Social Security Administration
District of Columbia
Federal Communications Commission
Intelligence Community Management Account
National Archives and Records Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Smithsonian Institution
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
5746
2069
17,3744
271
1,8273
4,3006
29,7558
19
502
3,2775
478
1,7191
2053
1200
3089
420
1381
210
1430
2052
3651
23
1842
34
23
1220
177
721
134
910
80
6577
2,7300
2500
2330
10
5071
2581
19,4135
318
1,9388
4,6268
34,3509
48
527
3,6413
485
1,8092
2209
1337
3046
420
1570
191
1594
2218
3772
19
2146
390
23
328
207
728
140
923
90
129
3650
500
2,5091
467
3690
294
5747
2675
19,3033
306
2,0075
4,8398
34,7315
49
542
3,9739
527
1,7678
2479
1298
3691
430
1601
170
1920
2204
3855
22
2288
150
30
155
206
646
150
981
90
Total, Homeland Security budget authority .....................................................................................
61,227.8
3,871.6
68,818.5
3,382.1
69,845.0
Less Department of Defense
17,3744
6577
19,4135
3650
19,3033
non-defense Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ............................................................
43,853.4
3,213.9
49,405.0
3,017.1
50,541.6
Less Fee-Funded Homeland Security Programs

Less Mandatory Homeland Security Programs
4,7438
2,8870
5,4786
2,6043
79
5,4145
2,6227
net non-defense discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ..............................
36,222.6
3,213.9
41,322.0
3,009.2
42,504.4
Plus BioShield
1,2640
net non-defense discretionary Homeland Security ba , including bioShield ..............................
36,222.6
3,213.9
41,322.0
3,009.2
43,768.4
15
16
ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
is that the Presidents highest priority is to keep the

American people safe.
or mission area estimates over time based on additional

analysis or changes in the way specific activities are characterized, aggregated, or disaggregated.
Data Collection Methodology and Adjustments

The Federal spending estimates in this analysis utilize funding and programmatic information collected
on the Executive Branchs homeland security efforts.
Throughout the budget formulation process, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) collects three-year funding estimates and associated programmatic information
from all Federal agencies with homeland security responsibilities. These estimates do not include the efforts of the
Legislative or Judicial branches. Information in this chapter is augmented by a detailed appendix of account-level
funding estimates, which is available on the Analytical
Perspectives CD-ROM.
To compile this data, agencies report information using standardized definitions for homeland security.1 The
data provided by the agencies are developed at the activity level, which incorporates a set of like programs or
projects, at a level of detail sufficient to consolidate the
information to determine total Governmental spending
on homeland security.
To the extent possible, this analysis maintains programmatic and funding consistency with previous estimates. Some discrepancies from data reported in earlier
years arise due to agencies improved ability to extract
homeland security-related activities from host programs
and refine their characterizations. As in the Budget, where
appropriate, the data is also updated to reflect agency activities, Congressional action, and technical re-estimates.
In addition, the Administration may refine definitions
1 Federal homeland security activities are currently defined by OMB in Circular A11 as,
activities that focus on combating and protecting against terrorism, and that occur within the
United States and its territories (this includes Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) and Continuity of Operations (COOP) data), or outside of the United States and its territories if they
support domestically-based systems or activities (e.g., visa processing or pre-screening high-risk
cargo at overseas ports). Such activities include efforts to detect, deter, protect against, and, if
needed, respond to terrorist attacks.
Federal Expenditures
Total funding for homeland security has grown significantly since the attacks of September 11, 2001. For 2010,
the Presidents Budget includes $69.8 billion of gross budget authority for homeland security activities, a $1.0 billion (1.5 percent) increase above the 2009 enacted level.2
Excluding mandatory spending, fees, and the Department
of Defenses (DOD) homeland security budget, the 2010
Budget proposes a net, non-Defense, discretionary budget authority level of $42.5 billion, which is an increase
of $1.2 billion (3 percent) above the 2009 level (see Table
31).
A total of 31 agency budgets include Federal homeland security funding in 2010. Five agenciesthe
Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Health
and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ) and Energy
(DOE)account for approximately $64.9 billion (93 percent) of total Government-wide gross discretionary homeland security funding in 2010.
As required by the Homeland Security Act, this analysis presents homeland security risk and spending in three
broad categories: Prevent and Disrupt Terrorist Attacks,
Protect the American People, Our Critical Infrastructure,
and Key Resources, and Respond to and Recover From
Incidents.
Prevent and Disrupt Terrorist Attacks
Activities of both intelligence-and-warning and domestic counterterrorism aim to disrupt the ability of
terrorists to operate within our borders and prevent the
emergence of violent radicalization. Intelligence-andwarning funding covers activities designed to detect ter2
The 2010 gross homeland security funding request level excludes $1.3 billion for BioShield.
Table 32. PrevenT and diSruPT TerroriST aTTackS

Agency
2008
Enacted
2008
Supplemental/
Emergency
2009
Enacted
2009
Supplemental/
Emergency
2010
Request
Department of Labor
Department of State
2651
36
22,2547
02
2,8091
1,6593
383
666
1150
02
764
2,6700
2317
2250
1822
512
25,5756
02
2,9657
04
1,7382
403
762
1100
1,7991
438
3000
2068
507
27,5500
02
3,2710
04
1,6863
585
735
1510
Total, Prevent and disrupt Terrorist attacks ....................................................
27,288.5
3,126.7
30,739.8
2,142.9
33,048.4
17
3. HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING ANALYSIS
rorist activity before it manifests itself in an attack so

that proper preemptive, preventive, and protective action
can be taken. Specifically, it is made up of efforts to identify, collect, analyze, and distribute source intelligence
information or the resultant warnings from intelligence
analysis. It also includes information sharing activities
among Federal, State, and local governments, relevant
private sector entities, and the public at large; but it does
not include most foreign intelligence collectionalthough
the resulting intelligence may inform homeland security
activities. In 2010, funding for intelligence-and-warning
is distributed between DHS (53 percent), primarily in the
Office of Intelligence and Analysis; and DOJ (43 percent),
primarily in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The 2010 funding for intelligence and warning activities
is 12 percent above the 2009 level.
Activities to deny terrorists and terrorist-related
weapons and materials entry into our country and across
all international borders include measures to protect border and transportation systems, such as screening airport passengers, detecting dangerous materials at ports
overseas and at U.S. ports-of-entry, and patrolling our
coasts and the land between ports-of-entry. Securing our
borders and transportation systems is a complex task.
Security enhancements in one area may make another
avenue more attractive to terrorists. Therefore, our border and transportation security strategy aims to make
the U.S. borders smartertargeting layered resources
toward the highest risks and sharing information so
that frontline personnel can stay ahead of potential adversarieswhile facilitating the flow of legitimate visitors and commerce. The majority of funding for border
and transportation security ($24.6 billion, or 92 percent,
in 2010) is in DHS, largely for the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), and the U.S Coast Guard. Other
DHS bureaus and other Federal Departments, such as
the Departments of State and Justice, also play a significant role. The Presidents 2010 request would increase
funding for border and transportation security activities

by 8 percent over the 2009 level.
Funding for domestic counterterrorism contains
Federal and Federally-supported efforts to identify,
thwart, and prosecute terrorists in the United States. It
also includes pursuit not only of the individuals directly
involved in terrorist activity, but also their sources of support: the people and organizations that knowingly fund
the terrorists and those that provide them with logistical
assistance. In todays world, preventing and interdicting
terrorist activity within the United States is a priority for
law enforcement at all levels of government. The largest
contributors to the domestic counterterrorism goal are
law enforcement organizations: DOJ (largely for the FBI)
and DHS (largely for ICE), account for 52 and 46 percent
of funding for 2010, respectively.
Protect the American People, Our Critical
Infrastructure, and Key Resources
Critical infrastructure includes the assets, systems,
and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the
United States that their incapacitation or destruction
would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination
thereof. Key resources are publicly or privately controlled
resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government whose disruption or destruction
could have significant consequences across multiple dimensions, including national monuments and icons.
Efforts to protect the American people include defending against catastrophic threats through research,
development, and deployment of technologies, systems,
and medical measures to detect and counter the threat
of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN)
weapons. Funding encompasses activities to protect
against, detect, deter, or mitigate the possible terrorist
use of CBRN weapons through detection systems and
procedures, improving decontamination techniques, and
Table 33. ProTecT THe american PeoPle, our criTical

inFraSTrucTure, and key reSourceS
Agency
2008
Enacted
2008
Supplemental/
Emergency
2009
Enacted
2009
Supplemental/
Emergency
2010
Request
Other Agencies
2553
1572
16,8811
1,6665
2,2007
4,8925
4586
2361
2052
3651
1730
6813
6577
183
10
80
2697
2030
18,8527
1,7215
2,5106
5,3609
6660
2282
2218
3772
2134
7348
110
3650
500
5000
29
294
690
3105
2104
18,7597
1,7862
3,8611
3,9705
6300
2709
2204
3855
2282
7469
Total, Protect the american People, our critical infrastructure,

and key resources .................................................................
28,172.6
684.9
31,359.8
1,027.3
31,380.2
18
the development of medical countermeasures, such as

vaccines, drugs and diagnostics to protect the public from
the threat of a CBRN attack or other public health emergency. The agencies with the most significant resources
to help develop and field technologies to counter CBRN
threats are: DOD ($5.0 billion, or 56 percent, of the 2010
total); HHS, largely for research at the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) and for advanced development of medical countermeasures ($2.3 billion, or 26 percent, of the
2010 total); and DHS ($1.5 billion, or 12 percent, of the
2010 total). The Presidents 2010 request maintains funding for activities to defend against catastrophic threats.
In addition to the 2010 request, DHS will have access to
2009 resources for the deployment of new radiation portal
monitor equipment at ports of entry once successful testing and evaluation is completed.
Protecting the Nations critical infrastructure and key
resources (CI/KR) is a complex challenge for two reasons:
(1) the diversity of infrastructure and (2) the high level
of private ownership (85 percent) of the Nations critical infrastructure and key assets. Efforts to protect CI/
KR include unifying disparate efforts to protect critical
infrastructure across the Federal Government, and with
State, local, and private stakeholders; accurately assessing CI/KR and prioritizing protective action based on risk;
and reducing threats and vulnerabilities in cyberspace.
DOD continues to report the largest share of funding in
this category for 2010 ($13.7 billion, or 60 percent), which
includes programs focusing on physical security and improving the militarys ability to prevent or mitigate the
consequences of attacks against departmental personnel
and facilities. DHS has overall responsibility for prioritiz-
ing and executing infrastructure protection activities at

the national level and accounts for $4.5 billion (20 percent) of 2010 funding. Another 25 agencies also report
funding to protect their own assets and work with States,
localities, and the private sector to reduce vulnerabilities
in their areas of expertise.
The Presidents 2010 request increases funding for activities to protect the Nations people, critical infrastructure and key assets by $20.3 million. Funding in fiscal
year 2009 included a number of one-time non-recurring
funding increases. When compared to 2008, the 2010 request represents a $3.2 billion (11 percent) increase over
the two-year period.
Respond To and Recover From Incidents
The ability to respond to and recover from incidents requires efforts to bolster capabilities nationwide to prevent
and protect against terrorist attacks, and also minimize
the damage from attacks through effective response and
recovery. This includes programs that help to plan, equip,
train, and practice the response capabilities of many different response units (including first responders, such as
police officers, firefighters, emergency medical providers,
public works personnel, and emergency management officials) that are instrumental in the preparedness to mobilize without warning for an emergency. Building this
capability encompasses a broad range of agency incident
management activities, as well as grants and other assistance to States and localities for first responder preparedness capabilities. Response to natural disasters and other
major incidents, including catastrophic natural events
Table 34. reSPond To and recover From incidenTS Funding

Agency
2008
Enacted
2008
Supplemental/
Emergency
2009
Enacted
2009
Supplemental/
Emergency
2010
Request
Department of Labor
Department of State
542
461
4933
06
1608
2,0999
2,4254
19
29
98
69
123
177
383
728
582
95
30
17
110
34
23
456
11
21
600
552
513
5607
04
1662
2,1163
3,2100
48
37
97
148
170
188
401
764
702
84
30
07
12
390
23
328
26
20
2100
574
531
5436
04
1706
2,2427
2,9806
49
39
88
176
243
193
362
982
706
52
30
08
06
150
30
155
17
20
Total, respond To and recover From incidents ........................
5,580.8
60.0
6,507.6
210.0
6,378.9
such as Hurricane Katrina and chemical or oil spills,

do not directly fall within the definition of a homeland
security activity for funding purposes, as defined by section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. However,
preparing for terrorism-related threats includes many
activities that also support preparedness for catastrophic
natural and man-made disasters. Additionally, lessons
learned from the response to Hurricane Katrina have
been used to revise and strengthen catastrophic response planning. The agencies with the most significant
participation in this effort are: HHS ($2.2 billion, or 35
percent, of the 2010 total); and DHS ($3.0 billion, or 47
percent, of the 2010 total). Twenty-three other agencies
include emergency preparedness and response funding.
The Presidents 2010 request would decrease funding by
$128.7 million (2 percent) below the 2009 level, largely
due to reductions in state and local grant programs that
were not awarded based on a risk methodology and were
subject to earmarking for non-risk based projects.
Continue to Strengthen the Homeland
Security Foundation
Preventing and disrupting terrorist attacks; protecting
the American people, critical infrastructure, and key resources; and responding to and recovering from incidents
that do occur are enduring homeland security responsibilities. For the long-term fulfillment of these responsibilities it is necessary to continue to strengthen the principles, systems, structures, and institutions that cut across
the homeland security enterprise and support our activities to secure the Nation. Long-term success across several cross-cutting areas is essential to protect the United
States. While these areas are not quantifiable in terms of
budget figures, they are important elements in the management and budgeting processes. As the Administration
sets priorities and determines funding for new and existing homeland security programs, consideration must be
given to areas such as the assessment and management of
risk, which underlie the full spectrum of homeland security activities. This would include decisions about when,
where, and how to invest resources in capabilities or assets that eliminate, control, or mitigate risks. Likewise,
research and development initiatives promote the application of science and technology to homeland security
activities, and can drive improvements in processes and
efficiencies to reduce the vulnerability of the nation.
Non-Federal Expenditures3
State and local governments and private-sector firms
also have devoted resources of their own to the task of
defending against terrorist threats. Some of the additional spending has been of a one-time nature, such as investment in new security equipment and infrastructure;
some additional spending has been ongoing, such as hiring more personnel, and increasing overtime for existing
3 OMB does not collect detailed homeland security expenditure data from State, local, or
private entities directly.
19
security personnel. In many cases, own-source spending
has supplemented the resources provided by the Federal
Government.
Many governments and businesses, though not all,
place a high priority on, and provide additional resources, for security. A 2004 survey conducted by the National
Association of Counties found, that as a result of the
homeland security process of intergovernmental planning
and funding, three out of four counties believed they were
better prepared to respond to terrorist threats. Moreover,
almost 40 percent of the surveyed counties had appropriated their own funds to assist with homeland security.
Own-source resources supplemented funds provided by
States and the Federal Government. However, the same
survey revealed that 54 percent of counties had not used
any of their own funds.4 The surveys findings were based
on the responses from 471 counties (15 percent) nationwide, out of 3,140 counties or equivalents.5
A recent study conducted by the Heritage Foundation,
one of the few organizations to compile homeland security
spending estimates from states and localities, provides
data on state and local spending in support of homeland security activities.6 The report surveyed 43 jurisdictions that are eligible for DHS Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI) grant funds due to the risk of a terrorist
attack.7 These jurisdictions are home to approximately
145 million people or 47 percent of the total United States
population. According to the report, the 2007 homeland
security budgets for the jurisdictions examined (which include 26 states and the District of Columbia, 50 primary
cities, and 35 primary counties) totaled $37 billion, while
the same entities received slightly more than $2 billion
in federal homeland security grants.8 The report further
states that from 2000 - 2007, these states and localities
spent $220 billion on homeland security activities, which
includes increases of three to six percent a year for law
enforcement and fire services budgets, and received over
$10 billion in federal grants. California, the most populous state, is also the largest recipient of federal homeland security funds, having received almost $1.5 billion
from 2000 - 2007, while spending over $45 billion in State
and local funding. Over the same time period, the top ten
most populous states (including California) spent $148
billion on state and local homeland security related activities.
4 Source: National Association of Counties, Homeland Security Funding2003 State

Homeland Security Grants Programs I and II.
5 The National Association of Counties conducted a survey through its various state associations (48), responses were received from 471 counties in 26 states.
6 Source: Matt A. Mayer, An Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Homeland Security Budgets, A Report of the Heritage Center for Data Analysis, CDA09-01, March 9, 2009, at http://
www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/upload/CDA_09_01.pdf. Figures cited in this report have not been independently verified by the Office of Management and Budget.
7 The Heritage Foundation reports methodology in selecting the states, cities, and counties
to include in the report is as follows: the state had to possess a designated UASI jurisdiction and
the city and county had to belong to a designated UASI jurisdiction that had received at least
$15 million from 2003 to 2007 from the DHS.
8 The Heritage Foundation reports budget data for homeland security included primary
law enforcement agencies, fire departments, homeland security offices, and emergency management agencies. In some cases, state and local emergency management agency budget data was
embedded in the fire department budget data and was not separately noted in its own category.
20
There is also a diversity of responses in the businesses

community. A 2003 survey of 199 corporate security directors conducted by the Conference Board showed that
just over half of the companies reported that they had
permanently increased security spending post-September
11, 2001.9 About 15 percent of the companies surveyed
had increased their security spending by 20 percent or
more.10 Large increases in spending were especially evident in critical industries, such as transportation, energy,
financial services, media and telecommunications, information technology, and healthcare. However, about onethird of the surveyed companies reported that they had
not increased their security spending after September
11th.11 Given the difficulty of obtaining survey results
that are representative of the universe of States, localities, and businesses, it is likely that there will be a wide
range of estimates of non-Federal security spending for
critical infrastructure protection.
Additional Tables
The tables in the Federal expenditures section above
present data based on the Presidents policy for the 2010
Budget. The tables below present additional policy and
baseline data, as directed by the Homeland Security Act
of 2002.
An appendix of account-level funding estimates is
available on the Analytical Perspectives CD ROM.
9 Source: Thomas E. Cavanagh and Meredith Whiting, 2003 Corporate Security Management: Organization and Spending Since 9/11, The Conference Board. R-1333-03-RR. July
2003. This report references sample size of 199 corporate security directors, of which 96 were in
critical industries, while the remaining 103 were in non-critical industries. In the report, the
Conference Board states that it followed the DHS usage of critical industries, defined as the following: transportation; energy and utilities; financial services; media and telecommunications;
information technology; and healthcare.
10 The Conference Board survey cites the sample size for this statistic was 192 corporate
security directors.
11 The Conference Board survey cites the sample size for this statistic was 199 corporate
security directors.
Table 35. diScreTionary Fee-Funded Homeland SecuriTy acTiviTieS by agency

Agency
2008
Enacted
2008
Supplemental/
Emergency
2009
Enacted
2009
Supplemental/
Emergency
2010
Request
Department of State
157
2,5320
1,6365
3600
1840
23
134
157
3,4110
1,6700
1510
2146
23
140
157
3,3150
1,6530
1840
2288
30
150
Total, discretionary Homeland Security Fee-Funded activities ................................
4,743.8
5,478.6
5,414.5
21
Table 36. mandaTory Homeland SecuriTy Funding by agency

Agency
Department of Labor
2008
2008
Supplemental/
Enacted
Emergency
2201
194
130
143
2,6122
80
Total, Homeland Security mandatory Programs ..........................
2,887.0
2009
2009
Supplemental/
Enacted
Emergency
1371
167
79
130
144
2,4151
81
2,604.3
2010
Request
1626
167
130
244
2,3979
81
7.9
2,622.7
Table 37. baSeline eSTimaTeS -- ToTal Homeland SecuriTy Funding by agency

Agency
Baseline
2009
Enacted
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Department of Labor
Department of State
Corps of Engineers
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
507
259
19,779
32
1,939
4,627
36,643
5
52
3,688
48
1,809
222
134
305
42
158
19
159
221
406
2
215
39
2
33
21
73
14
93
9
538
263
19,976
32
1,960
4,696
35,535
5
53
3,738
48
1,827
229
137
309
42
161
19
160
223
410
2
229
39
2
33
21
74
14
96
9
557
268
20,254
33
1,988
4,769
36,595
5
54
3,842
49
1,852
238
140
316
43
163
19
163
226
415
2
231
40
2
34
22
77
14
100
9
575
272
20,594
33
2,024
4,863
37,582
5
57
3,957
50
1,883
247
145
321
44
168
20
165
230
423
2
234
41
2
34
22
78
15
105
9
598
278
20,968
34
2,063
4,964
38,610
5
59
4,075
51
1,918
254
149
330
45
170
21
168
234
430
2
236
41
2
35
22
80
15
108
9
619
286
21,340
35
2,102
5,063
39,687
5
61
4,198
51
1,953
265
153
338
45
175
21
171
237
438
2
238
42
2
36
23
83
15
112
10
Total, Homeland Security budget authority ............................................................

Less Department of
71,555
19,779
70,880
19,976
72,520
20,254
74,200
20,594
75,974
20,968
77,806
21,340
non-defense Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ....................................

Less Fee-Funded Homeland Security
Less Mandatory Homeland Security
51,776
5,508
2,604
50,904
5,542
2,623
52,266
5,617
2,883
53,606
5,713
2,987
55,006
5,813
3,094
56,466
5,916
3,208
net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ....

Plus BioShield
43,664
42,739
1,264
43,766
44,906
46,099
47,342
net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, including bioShield .....
43,664
44,003
43,766
44,906
46,099
47,342
126
127
129
131
133
137
obligations limitations ..............................................................................................

Department of Transportation Obligations Limitation
22
Table 38. Homeland SecuriTy Funding by budgeT FuncTion

2008
Actual
Budget Function
2009
Enacted
2010
Request
National Defense
International Affairs
General Science Space and Technology
Energy
Natural Resources and the Environment
Agriculture
Commerce and Housing Credit
Transportation
Community and Regional Development
Education, Training, Employment and Social Services
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits and Services
Administration of Justice
General Government
22,111
1,720
1,323
125
279
543
159
9,695
3,506
164
4,320
14
11
184
307
19,540
1,215
24,387
1,809
1,508
137
332
475
178
10,168
4,231
171
6,399
25
14
215
305
19,786
1,450
24,340
1,768
1,513
127
323
542
203
11,263
3,657
174
4,550
27
14
229
369
20,562
1,455
Total, Homeland Security budget authority ............................................................................

Less National Defense, DoD
65,216
18,032
71,590
19,779
71,116
19,303
non-defense Homeland Security ba. .......................................................................................

47,184
4,729
2,960
51,811
5,448
2,604
51,813
5,383
2,623
net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba. .......................................................
39,495
43,759
43,807
Table 39. baSeline eSTimaTeSHomeland SecuriTy Funding by budgeT FuncTion

Budget Function
2009
Enacted
Baseline
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
National Defense
International Affairs
General Science Space and Technology
Energy
Natural Resources and the Environment
Agriculture
Commerce and Housing Credit
Transportation
Education, Training, Employment and Social Services
Health
Medicare
Income Security
Social Security
Veterans Benefits and Services
General Government
24,387
1,809
1,508
137
332
475
178
10,168
4,231
171
6,399
25
14
215
305
19,751
1,450
24,616
1,827
1,523
138
337
506
181
10,409
4,274
174
4,705
25
14
229
309
20,161
1,452
24,987
1,852
1,544
141
342
524
184
10,693
4,340
179
4,778
26
15
231
316
20,892
1,476
25,434
1,883
1,570
143
352
541
188
10,985
4,416
185
4,873
26
15
234
321
21,534
1,500
25,922
1,918
1,598
146
358
563
192
11,288
4,494
190
4,974
27
15
236
330
22,198
1,525
26,408
1,953
1,626
150
368
584
196
11,599
4,578
196
5,073
27
15
238
338
22,906
1,551
Total, Homeland Security budget authority .............................................................................

Less National Defense, DoD
71,555
19,779
70,880
19,976
72,520
20,254
74,200
20,594
75,974
20,968
77,806
21,340
non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioshield ............................

51,776
5,508
2,604
50,904
5,542
2,623
52,266
5,617
2,883
53,606
5,713
2,987
55,006
5,813
3,094
56,466
5,916
3,208
net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioshield .....................

Plus BioShield
43,664
42,739
1,264
43,766
44,906
46,099
47,342
net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, including bioShield ......................
43,664
44,003
43,766
44,906
46,099
47,342
obligations limitations
Department of Transportation Obligations Limitation
126
127
129
131
133
137
4. STRENGTHENING FEDERAL STATISTICS

Federal statistical programs produce key information
to inform public and private decision makers about a
range of topics of interest, including the economy, the population, agriculture, crime, education, energy, the environment, health, science, and transportation. The ability
of governments, businesses, and citizens to make appropriate decisions about budgets, employment, investments,
taxes, and a host of other important matters depends critically on the ready availability of relevant, accurate, and
timely Federal statistics.
The Federal statistical community remains on alert for
opportunities to improve these measures of our Nations
performance. For example, during 2008, Federal statistical agencies: (1) continued development of a health care
satellite account that will provide a means to better measure the costs of various health treatments and the sources of changes in health care costs (Bureau of Economic
Analysis); (2) released the first multiyear estimates from
the 20052007 American Community Survey giving communities with populations between 20,000 and 65,000
their first statistical portrait since the 2000 census on
a wide range of key socioeconomic and housing topics
(Census Bureau); (3) published the first-ever estimates
of both workplace injury and illness rates by occupation,
gender, and age category and labor force estimates for
persons with disabilities (Bureau of Labor Statistics); (4)
developed a new Business R&D and Innovation Survey
that provides the first nationally representative U.S. business data on innovation activities (Division of Science
Resources Statistics/National Science Foundation); (5)
fully deployed new electronic reporting software with
improved functionality, usability, and performance that
helped increase the percentage of establishments reporting electronically to 28.6 for the 2007 Census, compared
to 10.1 in 2002 (Census Bureau); (6) provided estimates of
the macroeconomic impact of increasing food assistance
program benefits to the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Congress during the development of the recent economic
stimulus legislation (Economic Research Service); (7) completed a business process analysis of statistical publications in preparation for tabulating and disseminating data
from the Social Security Administrations (SSAs) major
administrative data files (Office of Research, Evaluation,
and Statistics, SSA); (8) released the 2007 Census of
Agriculture providing a comprehensive summary of the
number of farms by size and type, inventory and values for crops and livestock, and operator characteristics
(National Agricultural Statistics Service); (9) published
2008 preliminary estimates of electronic medical record
use by office-based physicians (National Center for Health
Statistics); and (10) completed the revised structure of
the Standard Occupational Classification for 2010 (the
interagency Standard Occupational Classification Policy

Committee, chaired by the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
For Federal statistical programs to effectively benefit their wide range of users, the underlying data systems must be credible. In order to foster this credibility,
Federal statistical programs seek to adhere to high quality standards and to maintain integrity and efficiency in
the production of data. As the collectors and providers of
these basic statistics, the responsible agencies act as data
stewardsbalancing public and private decision makers
needs for information with legal and ethical obligations to
minimize reporting burden, respect respondents privacy,
and protect the confidentiality of the data provided to the
Government. This chapter presents highlights of principal statistical agencies 2010 budget proposals.
Highlights of 2010 Program Budget Proposals
The programs that provide essential statistical information for use by governments, businesses, researchers,
and the public are carried out by more than 80 agencies
spread across every department and several independent
agencies. Excluding cyclical funding for the Decennial
Census, nearly 40 percent of the total budget for these
programs provides resources for 13 agencies or units that
have statistical activities as their principal mission. (See
Table 41.) The remaining funding supports work in more
than 70 agencies or units that carry out statistical activities in conjunction with other missions such as providing
services, conducting research, or implementing regulations. More comprehensive budget and program information about the Federal statistical system will be available in OMBs annual report, Statistical Programs of the
United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010, when it is
published later this year. The following highlights elaborate on the Administrations proposals to support the programs of the principal Federal statistical agencies.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA): Funding is
requested to continue BEAs core programs, and to: (1)
expand BEAs internal research capacity to allow quick
response and adaptation to current and future changes
in the rapidly evolving service sector (which includes finance, insurance, and real estate), where once tolerable
gaps in data now pose significant risks to the Nations
economic indicators; (2) invest in the personnel, data, and
information technology required to produce new and expanded GDP-related statistics that uniquely measure the
role of innovation, retirement income developments, and
energy price pressures on U.S. economic growth as part
of an ongoing plan to produce a comprehensive set of real
time statistics that are relevant to the most pressing issues facing policy makers today; and (3) reexamine and
23
24
redesign surveys of multi-national corporations to maximize their efficiency and improve their usefulness in addressing current needs while restoring the coverage and
detail of multi-national corporation data that BEA had
collected until 2008 budget constraints required programmatic cuts.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS): Funding is
requested for the improvement of BJS criminal victimization statistics derived from the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), and maintenance of BJS
other core statistical programs, including: (1) cybercrime
data on the incidence, magnitude, and consequences to
households and businesses of electronic and computer
crime; (2) law enforcement data from more than 3,000 local agencies on the organization and administration of police and sheriffs departments; (3) nationally representative prosecution data on resources, policies, and practices
of local prosecutors; (4) court and sentencing statistics,
including Federal and State case processing data; and
(5) data on correctional populations and facilities from
Federal, State, and local governments, including information about prisoner re-entry and recidivism. Within funds
sought for the NCVS, BJS will also seek to improve the
usefulness of the survey by addressing recommendations
of the 2008 National Research Council report, Surveying
Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime
Victimization Survey.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): Funding is requested to support ongoing BLS programs to measure the
economy, and to: (1) continue the process, begun in 2009,
of updating continuously the housing and geographic
area samples in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which
will improve the accuracy and timeliness of the CPI; (2)
complete the modernization of the computing systems
for monthly processing of the Producer Price Index and
U.S. Import and Export Price Indexes, which will stabilize
the operating environment; (3) publish the first national
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses estimates
of workplace injuries and illnesses incurred by State and
local government workers; and (4) begin development of
a new data series on green-collar jobs that will measure
employment and wages for businesses whose primary activities can be defined as green, and produce information on the occupations involved, in whole or in part, in
green economic activities.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS):
Funding is requested to support the development and
improvement of transportation system performance measures and for the maintenance of BTS core statistical programs, including: (1) production of the improved final data
products from the Commodity Flow Survey; (2) improvement of the National Census of Ferry Operators used to
allocate resources for ferry operations and infrastructure;
(3) production of transportation data for enhancing livable communities; (4) release of monthly statistics on the
commodities and modes of transportation used in international trade with the United States major trading part-
ners; (5) production of a core set of transportation performance indicators including the Transportation Services
Index; and (6) collection, analysis, and dissemination of
airline performance data.
Census Bureau: Funding is requested for the Census
Bureaus ongoing economic and demographic programs
and for a re-engineered 2010 Census. For the 2010 Census
program, funding is requested to conduct the enumeration of the population. Specifically, in 2010 the Census
Bureau will carry out the major 2010 Census operations,
including mail out, receipt, and processing of returned
census forms, and visit households that do not return a
census form to collect the necessary information. Other
major operations include Group Quarters Enumeration,
Update/Leave Final Address Review, Update/Enumerate
(in which enumerators both update their address registers and census maps and enumerate the housing unit
in a single visit), Military Enumeration, conducting census operations in Puerto Rico and the Island Areas, and
numerous other operations. The Census Bureau will
also conduct coverage follow-up operations and coverage
measurement field operations. The Census Bureau will
continue to support these operations through a network
of 494 local census offices, 12 regional census centers, a
Puerto Rico Area Office, as well as at headquarters. In
addition, the Census Bureau will continue data collection
for the American Community Survey, and reinstate the
Community Address Updating System. For the Census
Bureaus other economic and demographic programs,
funding is requested to: (1) continue to release data for
the 2007 Economic Census and conduct more than 100
annual, quarterly, and monthly surveys that provide key
national economic statistics; (2) begin planning for the
2012 Census of Governments; (3) operate the Survey of
Income and Program Participation at the traditional sample size and incorporate improvements; and (4) expand
the Local Employment Dynamics program, which develops new information about local labor market conditions
at low cost, with no added respondent burden.
Economic Research Service (ERS): Funding is
requested to continue ERS core programs, and to support
research to develop analytical tools and assessments of
the economic implications of how environmental services
markets are designed. Given that agriculture plays
a major role in domestic cap-and-trade proposals for
addressing climate change, the research will emphasize
design elements of carbon offset markets that will permit capture of key policy variables critical to providing
appropriate guidance for policy makers.
Energy Information Administration (EIA):
Funding is requested to: (1) maintain critical energy
data coverage, analysis, and forecasting operations; (2)
improve energy end use and efficiency data by increasing the sample size and scope of data collected for the
Residential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey and
the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey;
(3) address energy data scope and quality issues including
4. STRENGTHENING FEDERAL STATISTICS
collecting export data for products such as diesel; improving the quality, timeliness, and access to integrated State
Energy Data products; improving the accuracy/timeliness
of data on U.S. oil production; providing analyses of refineries; and improving electricity data by restoring the
Annual Electric Industry Financial Report (EIA-412); (4)
address the role and impact of financial markets on shortterm energy prices and price volatility; (5) incorporate
ethanol and other biofuels into EIAs monthly and weekly
liquid fuel balances; and (6) continue development and
testing of the next generation National Energy Model,
which will improve EIAs ability to assess and forecast
supply, demand, and technology trends affecting U.S. and
world energy markets.
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS):
Funding is requested to continue NASS core programs,
and to: (1) complete reinstatement of the NASS Chemical
Use Program (Fruit Chemical Use was reinstated in
2009); and (2) provide a data series on bio-energy production and utilization. Within the currently available
Census of Agriculture funding, NASS will be able to conduct the Census of Horticulture Specialties follow-on
study that will provide more in-depth information on the
horticulture industry than is available from the quinquennial Census of Agriculture.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES):
Funding is requested to continue NCES core programs, and to: (1) conduct the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, including 2010 national U.S. history, civics, and geography assessments at grades 4, 8, and
12; analysis of a 2009 high school transcript study; and
preparation for 2011 Trial Urban District Assessments in
17 districts; (2) continue a new teacher longitudinal study
to follow teachers who were in the 20072008 Schools and
Staffing Survey as first-year teachers; (3) provide technical assistance to State education agencies to improve the
use of State longitudinal data systems; (4) prepare for the
Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies, an international assessment scheduled
for 2011; (5) support future data collections examining
participation of preschool children in nonparental education and care arrangements, and (6) provide State-level
data for a small number of States for the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 20102011.
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS):
Funding is requested to continue data collection, analysis,
and dissemination activities for key national health data
systems, including the National Vital Statistics System,
National Health Interview Survey, National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and National
Health Care Surveys, and to: (1) continue providing timely, accurate estimates of high-priority health measures;
(2) enhance the quality and usability of data access tools
through improved tutorials; (3) use birth and death data
collected by the States for tracking priority health initia-
25
tives in prevention, cancer control, out-of-wedlock births,
and teenage pregnancy; (4) continue providing NHANES
data on diet and nutrition, blood pressure, chronic diseases, and other health indicators; and (5) provide information annually on the health status of the U.S. civilian
non-institutionalized population through confidential
household interviews conducted by the National Health
Interview Survey.
Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics
(ORES), SSA: Funding is requested to continue ORES
core programs, and to: (1) further modernize ORES processes for developing and disseminating data from SSAs
major administrative data files for statistical purposes;
(2) support outside surveys and linkage of SSA administrative data to surveys; (3) create a new public use file
of administrative data on earnings histories and benefits
for a sample of Social Security Numbers; (4) strengthen
microsimulation models that estimate the distributional
effects of alternative Social Security programs; (5) begin development of a topical module for the redesign of
the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)
to address Social Securitys data needs for microsimulation models, program evaluation, and analysis; and (6)
evaluate data from the 19901993 and 1996 SIPP panels
matched to SSA and IRS administrative data.
Science Resources Statistics Division (SRS), NSF:
Funding is requested to implement ongoing programs on
the science and engineering enterprise, and to: (1) continue redesign and improvement activities for a broad
range of surveys, particularly the 2010 sample frame
redesign for the National Survey of College Graduates
and the suite of research and development surveys; (2)
support the Science of Science and Innovation Policy programs efforts to develop the data, tools, and knowledge
needed for a new science of science policy by enhancing
the comparability, scope, and availability of international
data; (3) develop a pilot data collection on postdocs based
on feasibility activities in 20062009; (4) develop an innovation module for the Higher Education Research and
Development survey; and (5) continue development work
on the Microbusiness R&D and Innovation survey.
Statistics of Income Division (SOI), IRS: Funding
is requested to continue SOIs core programs, and to: (1)
continue to modernize tax data collection systems, particularly to more efficiently assimilate into SOI systems
data captured from the electronic filing of tax and information returns; (2) examine means to better mask individual records to minimize the risk of reidentification in
the Individual Public Use cross-section file; (3) undertake
a feasibility study to develop an Individual Public Use
panel data file; (4) develop statistical techniques to identify outliers and edit data in IRS administrative population files; and (5) develop a process for providing relevant
statistics needed for the tax-related provisions of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
26
Table 41. 20082010 budgeT auTHoriTy For PrinciPal STaTiSTical agencieS1

(in millions of dollars)
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
2010
Bureau of Economic Analysis

Bureau of Justice Statistics2
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
78
41
544
27
87
52
597
27
99
67
611
28
Census Bureau3
Salaries and Expenses3
Periodic Censuses and Programs
1,467
233
1,234
77
95
162
4,169
264
3,905
80
111
152
7,405
289
7,116
82
133
162
208
104
98
6
114
26
36
36
254
115
130
9
125
29
45
42
265
126
130
9
138
26
41
43
Economic Research Service

Energy Information Administration
National Agricultural Statistics Service4
National Center for Education Statistics5
Statistics5
Assessment
National Assessment Governing Board
National Center for Health Statistics6
Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, SSA
Science Resources Statistics Division, NSF
Statistics of Income Division, IRS
1
Reflects any cancellations

Includes funds for management and administrative costs of $6, $7, and $7 million in 2008, 2009, 2010, respectively that were previously
displayed separately
3 Salaries and Expenses funds include discretionary and mandatory funds For the Periodic Censuses and Programs account, the 2008
actual includes $207 million in supplemental funds and 2009 includes $1 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding
4 Includes funds for the periodic Census of Agriculture of $52, $37, and $37 million in 2008, 2009, and 2010 respectively 2008 was the
peak year of funding for the 2007 Census of Agriculture data collection and processing 2009 funding was used to summarize and publish the
2007 Census of Agriculture, as well as conduct a follow-on study on Farm and Ranch Irrigation 2010 funding will be used to continue planned
follow-on studies and preparations for the 2012 Census of Agriculture
5 Includes funds for salaries and expenses of $16, $16, and $17 million in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively, that are reflected in the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) budget In addition, NCES manages the IES grant program for the State Longitudinal Data Systems
which is funded at $48, $65 plus $250, and $65 million in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively
6 All funds from the Public Health Service Evaluation Fund Administrative costs for NCHS that previously were displayed as part of the
NCHS budget line are now reflected in two consolidated CDC-wide budget lines for management and administrative costs
2
5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

In the past, Federal funding for scientific research has
yielded innovations that have improved the landscape of
American lifetechnologies like the Internet, digital photography, bar codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and chemotherapy. Today, the United
States faces a new set of challenges, and science and technology can be a powerful ally in addressing them.
The Presidents 2010 Budget proposes $148 billion for
Federal research and development (R&D). This investment reinforces the Administrations commitment to science, technology, and innovation that will help the country make progress toward national goals of a prosperous
economy, a clean energy future, a healthy American people, and a safe and secure Nation.
Already in this Administration, the President has
signed into law the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L.
111-8) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(P.L. 111-5). Both boosted the budgets of key science agencies not only for their potential contributions to economic
recovery, but also because science and technology can help
reorient the U.S. economy through strategic investments
in clean energy, broadband communications, health care
information technology, and education. These laws are
critical down payments in doubling Federal investments
in key science agencies, meeting a commitment to invest
$150 billion during the next 10 years in a clean energy future, and restoring Americas capabilities for understanding the dimensions of climate change. The 2010 Budget
builds on these early accomplishments with continued
investments in R&D.
In general, the Budgets priorities align with the conclusions in the report from the National Science and
Technology Summit held in August 2008.
I. PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Budget provides support for promising, but exploratory and high-risk, research proposals that could
fundamentally improve our understanding of nature,
revolutionize fields of science, and lead to radically new
technologies.
Investing in the Sciences for a Prosperous
America
Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of naturefrom the size of the
universe to the nature of subatomic particles, from the
chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystemshas been an essential feature of American life and helped to drive our economic
success for over 50 years. While the outcomes of specific
projects are never predictable, basic research has been a
reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments in fields ranging from telecommunications to medicine, yielding positive rates of economic return and creating entirely new industries with high-tech,
high-wage jobs.
The President plans to double Federal investment
for basic research in key agencies, the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energys (DOEs)
Office of Science, and the laboratories of the Department
of Commerces (DOCs) National Institute of Standards
and Technology, building on down payments in the
Recovery Act.
The Budget proposes $12.6 billion in 2010 for these
three agencies. This level is an increase of 6-percent above
the 2009 enacted level of $11.9 billion, which itself was an
11-percent increase from the 2008 enacted level of $10.7

billion. The Recovery Act provided an additional $5.2 billion for these agencies. These increases in research funding will help the United States to remain prosperous.
To increase the impacts of these investments, the
2010 Budget also emphasizes support for researchers at
the beginning of their careers to sustain and expand the
Nationss scientific and technical workforce, including a
plan to triple the number of NSFs Graduate Research
Fellowships by 2013.
A Clean Energy Future
The Administration envisions a United States that
can lead the world in the research, development, demonstration and deployment of clean energy technology.
Investments in clean energy R&D will drive a new energy
economy that reduces dependence on oil, creates green
jobs, and reduces the impact of climate change.
The 2010 Budget builds upon substantial clean energy
R&D investments in the Recovery Act to forge a comprehensive approach to transforming our energy supply and
slowing global climate change through cutting-edge science and technology. R&D funding will support renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies such as
advanced batteries, solid-state lighting, solar, biomass,
geothermal, and wind power. The 2010 Budget also supports the development and testing of carbon capture and
storage technologies that could reduce carbon emissions
from the use of fossil fuels and basic research to support
transformational discoveries and accelerate solutions in
the development of clean energy.
27
28
R&D Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided Federal R&D funding to spur new discoveries
in energy, medicine, climate and technologies for the future.
Within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received more than $10
billion for basic biomedical research and laboratory renovation and construction. In addition, $1 billion was included for
comparative effectiveness research at NIH and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The Recovery Act included a $5.2 billion investment in key science agencies, including: $3 billion at NSF for basic research,
education and human resources, research facilities construction, and research instrumentation; $1.6 billion at DOEs Office
of Science for energy frontier research collaborations, and infrastructure improvements at the national laboratories; and
$580 million at DOCs National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for standards research, advanced measurement equipment, and construction of NIST research facilities. This investment by itself is an almost 50-percent increase
for these programs over the 2008 enacted level and represents a significant down payment toward the Presidents plan to
double the funding for basic research in these agencies.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration received $1 billion for activities such as acceleration of earth science
climate research missions, and development of the next generation air transportation system. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration received $170 million for climate modeling, and $660 million that includes support for maintenance and construction of research vessels and facilities. The U.S. Geological Survey received $140 million for facility
renovation and construction and for seismic and volcanic monitoring systems.
Healthy Lives for All Americans

Federal R&D investments in health result in knowledge and technologies that promote longer, healthier lives
for all Americans. The Administration is committed to
funding biomedical and health research and to policies to
increase the impact of these investments on health outcomes. The 2010 Budget will emphasize research to promote healthy living and disease prevention.
The 2010 Budget proposes $30.8 billion for NIH, an
increase of $443 million above the 2009 enacted level of
nearly $30.4 billion. This level includes more than $6 billion to support cancer research, which is central to the
Presidents multi-year plan to double this area of research.
A Safe and Secure America
New developments in science and technology offer hope
of predicting and preventing destabilizing or paralyzing
natural and manmade threats, as well as minimizing their
impacts and recovering from them as quickly as possible.
The 2010 Budget sustains the Department of Defenses

(DODs) critical role in supporting technological advances with $3.2 billion for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency for its support of longer-term breakthrough research. The Budget also proposes $1.8 billion
for DOD basic research, within a total DOD R&D investment of $79.7 billion. The Budget maintains scientific and
technological preeminence for our Armed Forces.
The Budget accelerates the development of new medicines, vaccines, and production capabilities for biodefense by investing in countermeasures development. The
Budget also invests in the technological capabilities necessary to monitor nuclear nonproliferation compliance
and to prevent weapons of mass destruction from entering the country.
The Budget also invests in the science and technology
needed to combat natural and manmade threats to our
Nations food supply, including $132 million in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for research associated with
the safety of the U.S. food supply.
II. FEDERAL R&D DATA

R&D is the collection of efforts directed towards gaining
greater knowledge or understanding and applying knowledge toward the production of useful materials, devices,
and methods. R&D investments can be characterized
as basic research, applied research, development, R&D
equipment, or R&D facilities. The Office of Management
and Budget has used those or similar categories in its collection of R&D data since 1949.
Federal R&D Funding
Basic research is systematic study directed toward
a fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamen-
tal aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products
in mind. Basic research, however, may include activities
with broad applications in mind.
Applied research is systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means
by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
Development is systematic application of knowledge
or understanding, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including
design, development, and improvement of prototypes and
new processes to meet specific requirements.
29
Research and development equipment includes acquisition or design and production of movable equipment,
such as spectrometers, research satellites, detectors, and
other instruments. At a minimum, this category should
include programs devoted to the purchase or construction
of R&D equipment.
Research and development facilities include the
acquisition, design, and construction of, or major repairs
or alterations to, all physical facilities for use in R&D activities. Facilities include land, buildings, and fixed capital equipment, regardless of whether the facilities are to
be used by the Government or by a private organization,
and regardless of where title to the property may rest.

This category includes such fixed facilities as reactors,
wind tunnels, and particle accelerators.
There are more than 20 Federal agencies that fund
R&D in the United States. The nature of the R&D that
these agencies fund depends on the mission of each
agency and on the role of R&D in accomplishing it. Table
5-1 shows agency-by-agency spending on basic and applied research, development, and R&D equipment and
facilities.
III. MULTI-AGENCy R&D ACTIVITIES

A number of research investments are being addressed
through multi-agency research activities coordinated
through the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) and other interagency forums. Many of the challenges simply cannot be addressed by a single agency.
Moreover, innovation often arises from combining the
tools, techniques, and insights from multiple agencies.
Table 5-2 shows details of three such interagency efforts:
networking and information technology R&D, nanotechnology R&D, and climate change R&D.
Networking and Information Technology R&D:
The Budget provides $3.9 billion for the multi-agency
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development (NITRD) Program, which plans and coordinates agency research efforts in cyber security, highend computing systems, advanced networking, software
development, high-confidence systems, information management, and other information technologies. In 2008,
the NITRD agencies addressed the recommendations contained in the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology NITRD Program Review by establishing
a robust strategic planning activity scheduled to conclude
in 2009. The NITRD Subcommittee also published the
Federal Plan for Advanced Networking R&D in 2008,
and has continued to address cyber security research under the R&D-related components of the Comprehensive
National Cyber Security Initiative.
The 2010 Budget retains the important focus on investment in high-end computing research for both national
security and large-scale scientific applications, particularly in advanced scalable simulations. The 2010 Budget
also emphasizes foundations for assured computing and
secure hardware, software and network design and engineering to address the goal of making Internet communications more secure and reliable. Reports and general information about NITRD are available at www.nitrd.gov/.
Nanotechnology R&D: The Budget provides $1.6
billion for the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI). The NNI focuses on R&D that creates
materials, devices, and systems that exploit the fundamentally distinct properties of matter as it is manipulated at the nanoscale (roughly 1 to 100 nanometers). The
results of NNI-supported R&D can enable breakthroughs
in biomedical detection and treatment, manufacturing at
or near the nanoscale, environmental monitoring and protection, energy conversion and storage, and more powerful electronic devices, among many others.
Guided by the NNI Strategic Plan, participating agencies will continue to support nanoscience and nanotechnology development through investigator-led research;
multidisciplinary centers of excellence; education and
training; and infrastructure and standards development,
including user facilities and networks that are broadly
available to support research and innovation. In addition,
consistent with the NNI Strategy for NanotechnologyRelated Environmental Health, and Safety Research,
agencies continue to maintain a focus on the responsible
development of nanotechnology, with attention to the human and environmental health impacts, as well as ethical, legal, and other societal issues. Reports and general
information about the NNI are available at www.nano.
gov/.
Climate Change R&D: The U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) coordinates climate research
among the 13 departments and agencies that participate
in the CCSP. The 2010 Budget supports research activities including the development of an integrated earth system analysis capability; a focus toward creating a highquality record of the state of the atmosphere and ocean
since 1979; development of an end-to-end hydrologic
projection and application capability; enhanced carbon
cycle research on high latitude systems; quantification of
climate forcing and feedbacks by aerosols, non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, water vapor, and clouds; assessment of abrupt change in a warming climate; examination
of the feasibility of development of an abrupt change early
warning system; understanding climate change impacts
on ecosystem functions; and refining ecological forecasting. Reports and general information about the CCSP are
available on the programs website: www.climatescience.
gov/.
The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) provides strategic direction, planning, and analysis to help
coordinate and prioritize activities within the portfolio of
federally funded climate change technology R&D. Reports
and general information about the CCTP are available on
the programs website: www.climatetechnology.gov/.
30
Table 51. Federal reSearcH and develoPmenT SPending

(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
2008 Actual
2009 Estimate 1 2010 Proposed
by agency
Defense
Health and Human Services
NASA
Energy
Agriculture
Commerce
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security
Transportation
Interior
Other
80,278
29,265
11,182
9,807
4,580
2,336
1,160
960
995
875
683
551
1,074
81,916
41,518
11,326
13,067
7,757
2,597
1,703
1,020
1,096
913
766
580
1,141
79,687
30,936
11,439
10,740
5,312
2,272
1,330
1,160
1,125
939
730
619
1,331
ToTal .....................................................................................................................................
143,746
165,400
147,620
basic research
Defense
NASA
Energy
Agriculture
Commerce
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security
Transportation
Interior
Other
1,599
15,739
2,182
3,461
3,704
879
98
384
247
0
43
95
182
1,825
25,035
1,844
4,425
6,045
888
147
408
268
0
47
125
189
1,796
16,739
1,891
3,813
4,477
903
125
464
222
0
51
164
239
SubToTal .....................................................................................................................
28,613
41,246
30,884
applied research
Defense
NASA
Energy
Agriculture
Commerce
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security
Transportation
Interior
Other
4,855
13,349
561
3,180
420
1,146
835
520
382
667
554
377
567
5,174
14,813
1,044
3,810
400
1,221
986
552
413
672
644
370
587
4,236
14,027
937
3,093
423
1,130
895
628
476
694
607
370
623
SubToTal .....................................................................................................................
27,413
30,686
28,139
development
Defense
NASA
Energy
Agriculture
Commerce
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security
Transportation
Interior
Other
73,615
20
6,090
2,281
0
158
70
56
366
189
62
79
268
74,714
20
6,244
2,945
0
165
83
60
415
220
67
85
277
73,603
20
6,246
2,614
0
189
97
68
427
223
70
85
412
SubToTal .....................................................................................................................
83,254
85,295
84,054
31
Table 51. Federal reSearcH and develoPmenT SPending continued

2008 Actual
Facilities and equipment
Defense
NASA
Energy
Agriculture
Commerce
Veterans Affairs
Homeland Security
Transportation
Interior
Other
2009 Estimate 1 2010 Proposed
209
157
2,349
885
456
153
157
0
0
19
24
0
57
203
1,650
2,194
1,887
1,312
323
487
0
0
21
8
0
88
52
150
2,365
1,220
412
50
213
0
0
22
2
0
57
4,466
for 2009 include funding from PL 1115, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
8,173
4,543
SubToTal .....................................................................................................................
1Amounts
Table 52. agency deTail oF SelecTed inTeragency r&d eFForTS

2009 Estimate 1
2008 Actual
2010 Proposed
networking and information Technology r&d

Defense
Health and Human Services 2
Energy
Commerce
1,096
947
956
409
84
69
6
5
1,281
1,344
981
595
291
87
6
5
1,141
1,111
995
485
111
73
6
5
ToTal .................................................................................................................
3,572
4,590
3,927
national nanotechnology initiative

Defense
Energy
Health and Human Services 3
Commerce (NIST)
Homeland Security
Agriculture
Transportation
409
460
240
311
86
12
17
3
10
1
505
464
357
319
96
16
17
8
9
3
423
379
347
338
92
18
17
12
8
3
ToTal .................................................................................................................
1,549
1,794
1,637
climate change Science Program

Commerce
Energy
Interior (USGS)
Agriculture
US Agency for International Development
National Institutes of Health
Transportation
1,084
207
272
128
34
65
14
17
6
4
1
1,323
315
422
233
45
56
17
18
6
4
2
1,071
300
297
165
63
59
36
21
7
4
3
2,441
2,026
ToTal .................................................................................................................
1,832
Amounts for 2009 include funding from PL 1115, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
2 Includes funds from offsetting collections for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
3 Includes funds from both NIH and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
1
6. FEDERAL INVESTMENT
Investment spending is spending that yields longterm benefits. Its purpose may be to improve the efficiency of internal Federal agency operations or to increase the Nations overall stock of capital for economic
growth. The spending can take the form of direct Federal
spending or of grants to State and local governments.
It can be for physical capital, which yields a stream of
services over a period of years, or for research and development or education and training, which are intangible
but also increase income in the future or provide other
long-term benefits.
Most presentations in the Federal budget combine investment spending with spending for current use. This
chapter focuses solely on Federal and federally financed
investment.
In this chapter, investment is discussed in the following sections:
a description of the size and composition of Federal
investment spending; and
a presentation of trends in the stock of federally financed physical capital, research and development,
and education.
PART I: DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT

For almost sixty years, the Federal budget has included
a chapter on Federal investmentdefined as those outlays that yield long-term benefitsseparately from outlays for current use. In recent years the discussion of
the composition of investment has displayed estimates of
budget authority as well as outlays.
The classification of spending between investment and
current outlays is a matter of judgment. The budget has
historically employed a relatively broad classification,
encompassing physical investment, research, development, education, and training. The budget further classifies investments into those that are grants to State and
local governments, such as grants for highways or education, and all other investments, called direct Federal
programs in this analysis. This direct Federal category
consists primarily of spending for assets owned by the
Federal Government, such as defense weapons systems
and general purpose office buildings, but also includes
grants to private organizations and individuals for investment, such as capital grants to Amtrak or higher education loans directly to individuals.
Presentations for particular purposes could adopt different definitions of investment:
To suit the purposes of a traditional balance sheet,
investment might include only those physical assets
owned by the Federal Government, excluding capital
financed through grants and intangible assets such
as research and education.
Focusing on the role of investment in improving national productivity and enhancing economic growth
would exclude items such as national defense assets,
the direct benefits of which enhance national security rather than economic growth.
Concern with the efficiency of Federal operations

would confine the coverage to investments that reduce costs or improve the effectiveness of internal
Federal agency operations, such as computer systems.
A social investment perspective might broaden the
coverage of investment beyond what is included in
this chapter to include programs such as childhood
immunization, maternal health, certain nutrition
programs, and substance abuse treatment, which
are designed in part to prevent more costly health
problems in future years.
The relatively broad definition of investment used in
this section provides consistency over timehistorical
figures on investment outlays back to 1940 can be found
in the separate Historical Tables volume. Table 62 at
the end of this section allows disaggregation of the data
to focus on those investment outlays that best suit a particular purpose.
In addition to this basic issue of definition, there are
two technical problems in the classification of investment
data involving the treatment of grants to State and local
governments and the classification of spending that could
be shown in more than one category.
First, for some grants to State and local governments it
is the recipient jurisdiction, not the Federal Government,
that ultimately determines whether the money is used
to finance investment or current purposes. This analysis classifies all of the outlays in the category where the
recipient jurisdictions are expected to spend most of the
money. Hence, the community development block grants
are classified as physical investment, although some may
be spent for current purposes. General purpose fiscal assistance is classified as current spending, although some
may be spent by recipient jurisdictions on investment.
33
34
Second, some spending could be classified in more than

one category of investment. For example, outlays for construction of research facilities finance the acquisition of
physical assets, but they also contribute to research and
development. To avoid double counting, the outlays are
classified in the category that is most commonly recognized as investment. Consequently, outlays for the conduct of research and development do not include outlays
for research facilities, because these outlays are included
in the category for physical investment. Similarly, spending for physical investment and research and development related to education and training is included in the
categories of physical assets and the conduct of research
and development.
When direct loans and loan guarantees are used to
fund investment, the subsidy value is included as investment. The subsidies are classified according to their
program purpose, such as construction or education and
training. For more information about the treatment of
Federal credit programs, refer to Chapter 7, Credit and
Insurance, in this volume.
This section presents spending for gross investment,
without adjusting for depreciation.
Composition of Federal Investment Outlays

Major Federal Investment
The composition of major Federal investment outlays is
summarized in Table 61. They include major public physical investment, the conduct of research and development,
and the conduct of education and training. Defense and
nondefense investment outlays were $459.7 billion in 2008.
They are estimated to increase to $522.5 billion in 2009
and $596.3 billion in 2010. Roughly 15 percent of investment outlays in 2010 are due to P.L. 111-5, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).
Major Federal investment outlays will comprise an
estimated 16.6 percent of total Federal outlays in 2010
and 4.0 percent of the Nations gross domestic product.
Greater detail on Federal investment is available in Table
62 at the end of this section. That table includes both
budget authority and outlays.
Physical investment. Outlays for major public physical capital investment (hereafter referred to as physical
investment outlays) are estimated to be $307.7 billion
in 2010. Physical investment outlays are for construc-
Table 61. comPoSiTion oF Federal inveSTmenT ouTlayS

(In billions of dollars)
Federal Investment
Actual
Estimate
2008
2009
2010
Major public physical capital investment:

Direct Federal:
National defense
Nondefense
Subtotal, direct major public physical capital investment
1263
348
1611
1557
539
2095
1566
506
2072
Grants to State and local governments

Subtotal, major public physical capital investment
727
2338
883
2978
1005
3077
Conduct of research and development:

National defense
Nondefense
Subtotal, conduct of research and development
796
553
1349
823
622
1445
835
657
1493
Conduct of education and training:

Grants to State and local governments
Direct Federal
Subtotal, conduct of education and training
546
364
910
653
149
802
986
407
1393
Total, major Federal investment outlays ....................................................................................
459.7
522.5
596.3
Major Federal investment outlays:

National defense
Nondefense
Total, major Federal investment outlays
2059
2538
4597
2379
2845
5225
2402
3562
5963
Miscellaneous physical investment:

Commodity inventories
Other physical investment (direct)
Total, miscellaneous physical investment
-01
30
29
02
72
74
*
48
47
Total, Federal investment outlays, including miscellaneous physical investment
4626
5298
6011
memorandum
* $50 million or less
35
tion and rehabilitation, the purchase of major equipment, and the purchase or sale of land and structures.
Approximately two-thirds of these outlays are for direct
physical investment by the Federal Government, with the
remainder being grants to State and local governments
for physical investment.
Direct physical investment outlays by the Federal
Government are primarily for national defense. Defense
outlays for physical investment are estimated to be $156.6
billion in 2010. Almost all of these outlays, or an estimated
$140.7 billion, are for the procurement of weapons and other defense equipment, and the remainder is primarily for
construction on military bases, family housing for military
personnel, and Department of Energy defense facilities.
Outlays for direct physical investment for nondefense
purposes are estimated to be $50.6 billion in 2010. These
outlays include $29.7 billion for construction and rehabilitation. This amount includes funds for water, power,
and natural resources projects of the Corps of Engineers,
the Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of the
Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority; construction and rehabilitation of veterans hospitals and Indian
Health Service hospitals and clinics; facilities for space
and science programs; Postal Service facilities; the proposed National Infrastructure Bank; energy conservation projects in the Department of Energy; construction
for the administration of justice programs (largely in
Customs and Border Protection within the Department
of Homeland Security); construction of office buildings by
the General Services Administration; and construction
for embassy security. Outlays for the acquisition of major equipment are estimated to be $20.4 billion in 2010.
The largest amounts are for the air traffic control system;
weather and climate monitoring in the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; law enforcement activities, largely in the Department of Homeland Security and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and information systems in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Grants to State and local governments for physical
investment are estimated to be $100.5 billion in 2010.
Nearly three-quarters of these outlays, or $72.4 billion,
are to assist States and localities with transportation infrastructure, primarily highways. Other major grants for
physical investment fund sewage treatment plants, community and regional development, and public housing.
Roughly one-fifth of the outlays for physical investment
grants in 2010 are due to the Recovery Act, mostly for
ground transportation.
Conduct of research and development. Outlays for
the conduct of research and development are estimated
to be $149.3 billion in 2010. These outlays are devoted
to increasing basic scientific knowledge and promoting
research and development. They increase the Nations
security, improve the productivity of capital and labor for
both public and private purposes, and enhance the quality of life. More than half of these outlays, an estimated
$83.5 billion, are for national defense. Physical investment for research and development facilities and equipment is included in the physical investment category.
Nondefense outlays for the conduct of research and
development are estimated to be $65.7 billion in 2010.
These are largely for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the National Science Foundation,
the National Institutes of Health, and the Department
of Energy.
A more complete and detailed discussion of research
and development funding can be found in Chapter 5,
Research and Development, in this volume.
Conduct of education and training. Outlays for the conduct of education and training are estimated to be $139.3
billion in 2010. These outlays add to the stock of human
capital by developing a more skilled and productive labor
force. Grants to State and local governments for this category are estimated to be $98.6 billion in 2010, nearly threequarters of the total. They include education programs for
the disadvantaged and individuals with disabilities, training programs in the Department of Labor, Head Start, the
new State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and other education
programs. Direct Federal education and training outlays
are estimated to be $40.7 billion in 2010. Programs in
this category primarily consist of aid for higher education
through student financial assistance, loan subsidies, the
veterans GI bill, and health training programs. Significant
downward reestimates of student loan subsidies to be recorded in the current fiscal year reduce net outlays for
direct Federal education and training to $14.9 billion in
2009, leading to a large increase in this category in 2010.
Roughly one-third of the outlays for the conduct of education and training in 2010 are due to the Recovery Act,
mostly for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
This category does not include outlays for education
and training of Federal civilian and military employees.
Outlays for education and training that are for physical
investment and for research and development are in the
categories for physical investment and the conduct of research and development.
Miscellaneous Physical Investment
In addition to the categories of major Federal investment,
several miscellaneous categories of investment outlays
are shown at the bottom of Table 61. These items, all for
physical investment, are generally unrelated to improving
Government operations or enhancing economic activity.
Outlays for commodity inventories are for the purchase or sale of agricultural products pursuant to farm
price support programs and other commodities. Sales are
estimated to exceed purchases by $43 million in 2010.
Outlays for other miscellaneous physical investment
are estimated to be $4.8 billion in 2010. This category
consists entirely of direct Federal outlays and includes
primarily conservation programs.
36
Detailed Table on Investment Spending

The following table provides data on budget authority
as well as outlays for major Federal investment divided
according to grants to State and local governments and

direct Federal spending. Miscellaneous investment is not
included because it is generally unrelated to improving
Government operations or enhancing economic activity.
Table 62. Federal inveSTmenT budgeT auTHoriTy and ouTlayS: granT and direcT Federal ProgramS
(In millions of dollars)
Budget Authority
Description
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
granTS To STaTe and local governmenTS

Major public physical investments:
Construction and rehabilitation:
Transportation:
Highways
Mass transportation
Rail transportation
Air transportation
Subtotal, transportation
Other construction and rehabilitation:
Pollution control and abatement
Community and regional development
Housing assistance
Other construction
Subtotal, other construction and rehabilitation
Subtotal, construction and rehabilitation
Other physical assets
Subtotal, major public physical capital
Agriculture
Other
Elementary, secondary, and vocational education
Higher education
Research and general education aids
Training and employment
Social services
Agriculture
Other
Subtotal, grants for investment ..........................................................................................
38,438
10,316
70
3,404
52,228
58,338
18,468
8,115
4,920
89,841
41,193
10,170
1,000
3,515
55,878
36,747
9,846
3,808
50,401
44,622
13,155
209
3,608
61,594
52,935
14,020
1,261
4,156
72,372
1,962
18,968
6,187
483
27,600
79,828
1,539
81,367
8,361
10,030
16,066
933
35,390
125,231
1,854
127,085
4,293
5,542
6,299
578
16,712
72,590
1,705
74,295
2,484
10,221
7,629
418
20,752
71,153
1,565
72,718
2,605
10,893
10,937
548
24,983
86,577
1,678
88,255
3,776
12,312
9,706
735
26,529
98,901
1,627
100,528
308
255
563
347
309
656
346
396
742
320
279
599
317
369
686
332
379
711
35,740
438
789
3,496
10,433
458
1,805
53,159
113,525
452
1,100
6,405
15,946
498
2,511
140,437
39,681
452
841
3,656
10,836
512
2,107
58,085
37,453
519
757
3,293
10,354
424
1,766
54,566
43,957
523
797
4,389
12,671
458
2,486
65,281
76,391
486
920
5,061
13,156
547
2,088
98,649
135,089
268,178
133,122
127,883
154,222
199,888
13,955
351
14,306
18,505
257
18,762
14,606
208
14,814
8,175
381
8,556
12,361
241
12,602
15,750
219
15,969
863
2,855
6,211
877
2,487
391
1,425
393
0
1,857
2,557
10,184
1,703
10,254
6,845
663
368
0
1,057
2,465
2,995
792
3,047
9
1,028
189
5000
601
3,189
2,937
901
2,164
376
1,057
118
0
1,296
2,605
6,955
915
4,899
6,851
946
180
0
1,918
2,125
5,628
1,156
5,691
47
250
378
960
direcT Federal ProgramS

Major public physical investment:
Construction and rehabilitation:
National defense:
Military construction and family housing
Atomic energy defense activities and other
Subtotal, national defense
Nondefense:
International affairs
General science, space, and technology
Water resources projects
Other natural resources and environment
Energy
Federal Housing Administration
Postal Service
Transportation
National Infrastructure Bank
37
Table 62. Federal inveSTmenT budgeT auTHoriTy and ouTlayS: granT and direcT Federal ProgramScontinued
Budget Authority
Description
Veterans hospitals and other health facilities
Administration of justice
GSA real property activities
Other construction
Subtotal, nondefense
Subtotal, construction and rehabilitation
Acquisition of major equipment:
National defense:
Atomic energy defense activities
Nondefense:
General science and basic research
Space flight, research, and supporting activities
Postal Service
Air transportation
Water transportation (Coast Guard)
Other transportation (railroads)
Hospital and medical care for veterans
Veterans Information Technology
Law enforcement activities
Department of the Treasury (fiscal operations)
Department of Commerce (NOAA)
GSA general services funds
Other
Subtotal, acquisition of major equipment
Purchase or sale of land and structures:
National defense
Natural resources and environment
General government
Other
Subtotal, purchase or sale of land and structures
Subtotal, major public physical investment
National defense:
Defense military
Atomic energy and other
Nondefense:
General science, space, and technology:
NASA
Other general science, space, and technology
Subtotal, general science, space, and technology
Energy
Transportation:
NASA
Other
Subtotal, transportation
Health:
National Institutes of Health
All other health
Subtotal, health
Agriculture
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
4,401
2,262
1,445
1,145
24,755
39,061
8,042
2,537
6,747
3,214
54,971
73,733
2,026
1,885
1,154
2,357
24,004
38,818
3,178
1,566
1,533
1,246
18,866
27,422
3,942
2,199
2,383
1,653
34,824
47,426
3,606
2,892
3,199
1,848
29,698
45,667
165,097
406
165,503
132,822
479
133,301
131,304
573
131,877
117,480
327
117,807
142,747
326
143,073
140,145
515
140,660
668
90
832
3,535
927
1,325
1,480
2,358
2,070
311
978
823
755
16,152
181,655
1,557
193
1,049
4,667
1,396
2,790
1,430
2,798
2,179
279
1,842
1,024
1,503
22,707
156,008
812
180
1,496
3,748
1,229
1,502
1,969
3,307
1,963
287
1,391
1,044
1,069
19,997
151,874
622
110
923
3,398
1,034
1,309
1,273
1,989
1,890
312
1,074
823
816
15,573
133,380
798
148
1,132
3,963
1,318
1,860
1,428
2,568
1,795
243
1,039
1,024
1,351
18,667
161,740
1,176
139
525
4,052
1,484
2,282
1,505
3,141
2,093
274
1,487
1,044
1,212
20,414
161,074
25
194
142
20
381
221,097
-14
201
150
141
478
230,219
-27
244
141
156
514
191,206
-52
166
141
30
285
161,087
-18
183
151
31
347
209,513
-18
226
141
112
461
207,202
80,069
3,761
83,830
81,713
3,544
85,257
79,635
3,798
83,433
75,782
3,818
79,600
78,782
3,487
82,269
79,816
3,728
83,544
255
255
255
269
258
233
9,532
4,124
3,405
694
18,010
1,854
8,827
6,945
4,395
802
21,224
3,355
8,567
4,900
3,788
826
18,336
2,073
10,245
3,781
3,001
834
18,130
1,215
10,126
4,451
3,966
809
19,610
1,863
8,652
5,729
3,968
826
19,408
2,977
782
633
25
3,294
811
650
18
4,834
832
507
20
3,432
544
637
13
2,409
660
785
17
3,325
649
557
15
4,198
28,412
505
28,917
1,558
2,069
38,515
1,128
39,643
1,579
2,245
30,051
483
30,534
1,489
2,218
28,185
431
28,616
1,533
1,866
31,936
458
32,394
1,554
1,917
34,386
704
35,090
1,510
2,070
38
Table 62. Federal inveSTmenT budgeT auTHoriTy and ouTlayS: granT and direcT Federal ProgramScontinued
Budget Authority
Description
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
National Institute of Standards and Technology

Hospital and medical care for veterans
All other research and development
Elementary, secondary, and vocational education
Higher education
Research and general education aids
Training and employment
Health
Veterans education, training, and rehabilitation
General science and basic research
Other
393
960
1,018
56,219
140,049
537
1,020
1,077
72,159
157,416
494
1,160
1,239
58,902
142,335
418
874
902
54,748
134,348
516
986
1,230
61,532
143,801
560
1,102
1,098
65,036
148,580
1,434
24,616
2,035
1,913
1,463
3,728
958
545
696
37,388
1,529
15,163
2,212
3,664
1,669
4,814
1,105
569
1,000
31,725
1,505
15,870
2,296
2,673
1,649
9,219
1,066
664
1,062
36,004
1,429
23,758
1,997
1,990
1,461
3,634
970
530
629
36,398
1,511
-79
2,141
2,163
1,438
5,151
1,055
543
1,006
14,929
1,502
20,606
2,229
2,821
1,615
9,170
1,087
615
1,029
40,674
Subtotal, direct Federal investment ...................................................................................
398,534
419,360
369,545
331,833
368,243
396,456
Total, Federal investment ..........................................................................................................
533,623
687,538
502,667
459,716
522,465
596,344
PART II: FEDERALLy FINANCED CAPITAL STOCKS

Federal investment spending creates a stock of capital that is available for future productive use. Each year,
Federal investment outlays add to this stock of capital. At
the same time, however, wear and tear and obsolescence
reduce it. This section presents very rough measures over
time of three different kinds of capital stocks financed by
the Federal Government: public physical capital, research
and development (R&D), and education.
Federal spending for physical assets adds to the
Nations capital stock of tangible assets, such as roads,
buildings, and aircraft carriers. These assets deliver a
flow of services over their lifetime. The capital depreciates
as the asset ages, wears out, is accidentally damaged, or
becomes obsolete.
Federal spending for the conduct of R&D adds to an intangible asset, the Nations stock of knowledge. Spending
for education adds to the stock of human capital by providing skills that help make people more productive.
Although financed by the Federal Government, the R&D
or education can be carried out by Federal or State government laboratories, universities and other nonprofit organizations, local governments, or private industry. R&D
covers a wide range of activities, from the investigation
of subatomic particles to the exploration of outer space;
it can be basic research without particular applications
in mind, or it can have a highly specific practical use.
Similarly, education includes a wide variety of programs,
assisting people of all ages beginning with pre-school education and extending through graduate studies and adult
education. Like physical assets, the capital stocks of R&D
and education provide services over a number of years
and depreciate as they become outdated.
For this analysis, physical and R&D capital stocks are

estimated using the perpetual inventory method. Each
years Federal outlays are treated as gross investment,
adding to the capital stock; depreciation reduces the capital stock. Gross investment less depreciation is net investment. The estimates of the capital stock are equal to
the sum of net investment in the current and prior years.
Conversely, the year-to-year change in the capital stock
estimates is annual net investment. A limitation of the
perpetual inventory method is that the original investment spending may not accurately measure the current
value of the asset created, even after adjusting for inflation, because the value of existing capital changes over
time due to changing market conditions. However, alternative methods for measuring asset value, such as direct
surveys of current market worth or indirect estimation
based on an expected rate of return, are especially difficult to apply to assets that do not have a private market,
such as highways or weapons systems.
In contrast to physical and R&D stocks, the estimate
of the education stock is based on the replacement cost
method. Data on the total years of education of the U.S.
population are combined with data on the current cost
of education and the Federal share of education spending to yield the cost of replacing the Federal share of the
Nations stock of education.
It should be stressed that these estimates are rough
approximations, and provide a basis only for making
broad generalizations. Errors may arise from uncertainty
about the useful lives and depreciation rates of different
types of assets, incomplete data for historical outlays, and
imprecision in the deflators used to express costs in con-
39
stant dollars. The methods used to estimate capital stocks

are discussed further in the technical note at the end of
Chapter 13, Stewardship, in this volume. Additional
detail about these methods appeared in a methodological note in Chapter 7, Federal Investment Spending and
Capital Budgeting, in the Analytical Perspectives volume of the 2004 Budget.
The Stock of Physical Capital
This section presents data on stocks of physical capital
assets and estimates of the depreciation of these assets.
Trends. Table 63 shows the value of the net federally
financed physical capital stock since 1960, in constant fiscal year 2000 dollars. The total stock grew at a 2.2 percent
average annual rate from 1960 to 2008, with periods of
faster growth during the late 1960s and the 1980s. The
stock amounted to $2,398 billion in 2008 and is estimated
to increase to $2,527 billion by 2010. In 2008, the national
defense capital stock accounted for $742 billion, or 31 percent of the total, and nondefense stocks for $1,657 billion,
or 69 percent of the total.
Real stocks of defense and nondefense capital show
very different trends. Nondefense stocks have grown consistently since 1970, increasing from $470 billion in 1970
to $1,657 billion in 2008. With the investments proposed
in the budget, nondefense stocks are estimated to grow to
$1,727 billion in 2010. During the 1970s, the nondefense
capital stock grew at an average annual rate of 5.0 per-
cent. In the 1980s, however, the growth rate slowed to 2.9

percent annually, with growth continuing at about that
rate since then.
Real national defense stocks began in 1970 at a relatively high level, and declined steadily throughout the
decade as depreciation from investment in the Vietnam
era exceeded new investment in military construction
and weapons procurement. Starting in the early 1980s,
a large defense buildup began to increase the stock of
defense capital. By 1987, the defense stock exceeded its
earlier Vietnam-era peak. In the early 1990s, however,
depreciation on the increased stocks and a slower pace of
defense physical capital investment began to reduce the
stock from its previous levels. The increased defense investment in the last few years has reversed this decline,
increasing the stock from a low of $631 billion in 2001 to
$800 billion in 2010.
Another trend in the Federal physical capital stocks is
the shift from direct Federal assets to grant-financed assets. In 1960, 39 percent of federally financed nondefense
capital was owned by the Federal Government, and 61
percent was owned by State and local governments but
financed by Federal grants. Expansion in Federal grants
for highways and other State and local capital, coupled
with slower growth in direct Federal investment for water resources, for example, shifted the composition of the
stock substantially. In 2008, 26 percent of the nondefense
stock was owned by the Federal Government and 74 percent by State and local governments.
Table 63. neT STock oF Federally Financed PHySical caPiTal

(In billions of 2000 dollars)
Direct Federal Capital
Fiscal Year
Total
National
Total
Defense Nondefense
Water
and Power
Total
Capital Financed by Federal Grants
Other
Community
Natural
Transportation and Regional Resources
Total
Other
Five year intervals:

1960
849
608
242
95
59
36
146
89
27
21
10
1965
937
589
348
123
74
49
225
158
32
22
13
1970
1,101
630
470
146
88
58
324
230
47
26
21
1975
1,137
545
592
166
102
64
426
282
76
42
25
1980
1,258
494
763
195
123
72
568
342
121
79
27
1985
1,462
572
890
222
136
86
668
397
146
100
26
1990
1,740
722
1,018
256
147
109
762
462
158
113
28
1995
1,882
714
1,168
297
157
141
871
534
168
123
46
Annual data:
2000
1,979
635
1,345
337
160
178
1,007
618
183
131
75
2001
2,023
631
1,391
351
163
188
1,040
640
186
132
81
2002
2,078
636
1,442
366
165
201
1,076
666
189
134
87
2003
2,138
646
1,492
380
166
213
1,112
690
193
135
94
2004
2,198
662
1,536
390
168
223
1,146
714
196
136
100
2005
2,256
680
1,575
400
168
232
1,176
736
198
137
105
2006
2,316
701
1,614
410
169
240
1,205
758
199
138
109
2007
2,327
709
1,618
411
170
242
1,206
756
203
138
109
2008
2,398
742
1,657
424
171
253
1,233
778
203
139
113
2009 est
2,449
765
1,683
440
177
263
1,243
785
204
139
115
2010 est
2,527
800
1,727
450
178
271
1,277
811
208
141
118
40
The growth in the stock of physical capital financed by

grants has come in several areas. The growth in the stock
for transportation is largely grants for highways, including the Interstate Highway System. The growth in community and regional development stocks occurred largely
following the enactment of the community development
block grant in the early 1970s. The value of this capital
stock has grown only slowly in the past few years. The
growth in the natural resources area occurred primarily because of construction grants for sewage treatment
facilities. The value of this federally financed stock has
increased about 40 percent since the mid-1980s.
The Stock of Research and Development Capital
This section presents data on the stock of research and
development (R&D) capital, taking into account adjustments for its depreciation.
Trends. As shown in Table 64, the R&D capital stock
financed by Federal outlays is estimated to be $1,199 billion in 2008 in constant 2000 dollars. Roughly half is the
stock of basic research knowledge; the remainder is the
stock of applied research and development.
The nondefense stock accounted for about threefifths of the total federally financed R&D stock in 2008.
Although investment in defense R&D has exceeded that
of nondefense R&D in nearly every year since 1981, the
nondefense R&D stock is actually the larger of the two,

because of the different emphasis on basic research and
applied research and development. Defense R&D spending is heavily concentrated in applied research and development, which depreciates much more quickly than basic
research. The stock of applied research and development
is assumed to depreciate at a ten percent geometric rate,
while basic research is assumed not to depreciate at all.
The defense R&D stock rose slowly during the 1970s, as
gross outlays for R&D trended down in constant dollars
and the stock created in the 1960s depreciated. Increased
defense R&D spending from 1980 through 1990 led to a
more rapid growth of the R&D stock. Subsequently, real
defense R&D outlays tapered off, depreciation grew, and,
as a result, the real net defense R&D stock stabilized at
around $420 billion. Renewed spending for defense R&D
in recent years has begun to increase the stock, and it is
projected to increase to $487 billion in 2010.
The growth of the nondefense R&D stock slowed from
the 1970s to the 1980s, from an annual rate of 3.8 percent
in the 1970s to a rate of 2.1 percent in the 1980s. Gross
investment in real terms fell during much of the 1980s,
and about three-fourths of new outlays went to replacing
depreciated R&D. Since 1988, however, nondefense R&D
outlays have been on an upward trend while depreciation
has edged down. As a result, the net nondefense R&D
capital stock has grown more rapidly.
Table 6-4. neT STock oF Federally Financed reSearcH and develoPmenT 1

National Defense
Fiscal Year

1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
Applied
Research and
Development
Basic
Research
Total
261
276
279
321
403
423
Nondefense
16
21
25
30
36
43
Basic
Research
Total
245
255
255
291
366
380
Annual data:
423
48
375
2000
421
50
370
2001
419
52
368
2002
423
53
370
2003
428
54
374
2004
442
56
387
2005
452
57
395
2006
462
58
404
2007
470
59
411
2008
479
60
418
2009 est
487
61
425
2010 est
1 Excludes stock of physical capital for research and development, which is included in Table 6-3
Total Federal
Applied
Research and
Development
Basic
Research
Total
Applied
Research and
Development
215
262
311
339
383
461
67
97
131
174
228
293
148
165
179
165
154
168
475
538
590
659
785
883
82
118
156
204
264
336
393
421
434
455
521
548
542
563
587
613
639
660
684
706
729
756
785
367
386
406
427
449
469
490
510
531
557
584
175
177
181
186
190
191
194
196
197
199
201
965
984
1,006
1,036
1,067
1,102
1,136
1,168
1,199
1,235
1,272
416
436
458
480
503
525
547
568
590
617
645
550
548
549
556
564
578
589
600
608
617
626
41
The Stock of Education Capital

This section presents estimates of the stock of education capital financed by the Federal Government.
As shown in Table 65, the federally financed education stock is estimated at $1,591 billion in 2008 in constant
2000 dollars. The vast majority of the Nations education
stock is financed by State and local governments, and by
students and their families themselves. This federally financed portion of the stock represents about 3 percent of
the Nations total education stock. 1 Nearly three-quarters is for elementary and secondary education, while the
remainder is for higher education.
The federally financed education stock has grown
steadily in the last few decades, with an average annual
growth rate of 5.1 percent from 1970 to 2008. The expansion of the education stock is projected to continue under
this budget, with the stock rising to $1,749 billion in 2010.
1
For estimates of the total education stock, see table 135 in Chapter 13, Stewardship.
Table 65. neT STock oF Federally Financed educaTion caPiTal

Fiscal Year
Elementary
and Secondary
Education
Total
Education
Stock
Higher
Education

1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
71
102
234
349
482
577
733
878
51
74
184
282
379
434
546
641
20
28
50
67
103
143
188
237
Annual data:
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009 est
2010 est
1,135
1,188
1,235
1,277
1,325
1,356
1,432
1,511
1,591
1,629
1,749
827
863
898
930
958
990
1,027
1,081
1,142
1,183
1,281
308
325
337
347
367
367
405
430
449
446
467
7. CREDIT AND INSURANCE

The Federal Government offers direct loans and loan
guarantees to support a wide range of activities including housing, education, business and community development, and exports. The Federal Government also permits
certain privately owned companies, called GovernmentSponsored Enterprises (GSEs), to operate under Federal
charters for the purpose of enhancing credit availability
for targeted sectors. Through its insurance programs, the
Federal Government insures deposits at depository institutions, guarantees private defined-benefit pensions, and
insures against some other risks such as flood and terrorism. Recently, with private credit markets barely functioning, GSEs have been playing more active roles in the
secondary market, Federal credit programs have been endeavoring to accommodate more borrowers, and government guarantees and insurance have been expanded to
new areas of the economy.
This chapter discusses the roles of these diverse programs:

The first section emphasizes the roles of Federal
credit and insurance programs in addressing
market imperfections that may prevent the private market from efficiently providing credit
and insurance.
The second section discusses individual credit
programs and the GSEs intended to support
four sectors: housing, education, business and
community development, and exports.
The third section reviews Federal deposit insurance, pension guarantees, disaster insurance,
and insurance against terrorism and other security-related risks.
The fourth section discusses the Federal response to the recent financial market crisis.
I. THE FEDERAL ROLE

Credit and insurance markets often suffer from market
imperfections and can require regulation or other government involvement to function well. Relevant market imperfections include information failures, limited ability to
secure resources, insufficient competition, externalities,
and economic disequilibrium. Federal credit and insurance programs may improve economic efficiency if they
effectively fill the gaps created by market imperfections.
But the presence of a market imperfection does not mean
that Government intervention will always be effective. To
be effective, a credit or insurance program should be carefully designed to reduce inefficiencies in the targeted area
while minimizing inefficiencies elsewhere.
Information Failures. Financial intermediaries may
fail to allocate credit to credit-worthy borrowers if there
is an asymmetry in the information available to different
agents in the market place. For example, some groups of
borrowers, such as students and start-up businesses, have
limited incomes and credit histories, which can make it
difficult for financial institutions to distinguish between
borrowers who represent good and bad risks. In this circumstance, adverse selection can cause the pool of borrowers to disproportionately contain bad risks, thereby
causing creditworthy borrowers belonging to these groups
to fail to obtain credit or to be forced to pay excessively high interest rates. Government credit programs can
sometimes expand the pool of borrowers in such a way
that pricing becomes attractive to a wider set of potential
borrowers. Another example is caused by moral hazard
problems, where the borrower or insured could behave so
as to take advantage of the lender or insurer. This is the
case for pension guarantees, where sponsors might underfund plans, and for deposit insurance, where banks might
take more risk to earn a higher return. In these cases, the

Governments legal and regulatory powers can provide an
advantage in comparison with a private insurer.
Limited Ability to Secure Resources. The ability
of private entities to absorb losses is more limited than
that of the Federal Government, which has general taxing and borrowing authority and can therefore spread
risk more widely. For some events potentially involving a
very large loss concentrated in a short time period, therefore, Government insurance can be more reliable. Such
events include large bank failures and some natural and
man-made disasters that can threaten the solvency of private insurers. In addition, some lenders may have limited
funding sources. Small local banks, for example, may have
to rely largely on local deposits.
Insufficient Competition. Competition can be insufficient in some markets because of barriers to entry or
economies of scale. Insufficient competition may result in
unduly high prices of credit and insurance in those markets.
Externalities. Decisions at the individual level are
not socially optimal when individuals do not capture the
full benefit (positive externalities) or bear the full cost
(negative externalities) of their activities. Education, for
example, generates positive externalities because the
general public benefits from the high productivity and
good citizenship of a well-educated person. Pollution,
in contrast, is a negative externality, from which other
people suffer. Without Government intervention, people
will engage less than is socially optimal in activities that
generate positive externalities and more in activities that
generate negative externalities.
43
44
Economic Disequilibrium. Another rationale for

Federal intervention is economic disequilibrium. This is
one rationale for deposit insurance and the recent extension of guarantees to money market funds. If many banks
and other financial institutions are hurt simultaneously
by an economic shock, such as the one the Nation is currently experiencing, and depositors have a hard time
knowing which ones may become insolvent, deposit in-
surance prevents a contagious rush to withdraw deposits

that could harm the entire economy.
Reducing Inequality and Increasing Access. In
addition to correcting market failures, Federal credit
programs are often used to provide subsidies that reduce
inequalities or extend opportunities to disadvantaged regions or segments of the population.
II. CREDIT IN FOUR SECTORS
Housing Credit Programs and GSEs

Through housing credit programs, the Federal
Government promotes homeownership and housing
among various target groups, including low-income people, veterans, and rural residents. The primary function
of housing GSEs is to increase liquidity in the mortgage
market.
Federal Housing Administration
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guarantees mortgage loans to provide access to homeownership
for people who may have difficulty obtaining a conventional mortgage. FHA has been a primary facilitator
of mortgage credit for first-time and minority buyers,
pioneered products such as the 30-year self-amortizing
mortgage, and enhanced the credit of many moderate and
low-income households. It continues to have an important place in the mortgage market, but its roleand its
risksevolve.
FHA and the Mortgage Market
Shortly into the new millennium, FHAs market presence diminished greatly as lower interest rates increased
the affordability of mortgage finance and as more borrowers used emerging non-prime products, including subprime and Alt-A mortgages. Many of these products had
exotic and risky features such as low teaser rates offered
for periods as short as the first two years of the mortgage,
high loan-to-value ratios (with some mortgages exceeding
the value of the house), and interest-only loans requiring
full payoff at a set future date. The Alt-A mortgage made
credit easily available by not requiring documentation of
income or assets. This competition eroded FHAs market
share, reducing it from 10 percent in 2000 to 2 percent in
2005.
Starting at the end of 2007 and continuing through
the present day, the availability of FHA and Government
National Mortgage Association credit guarantees have
been important counter-cyclical responses to the tightening of the private credit markets. With few conventional
options, borrowers and lenders have flocked to FHA mortgages which have the advantages of being widely understood in the mortgage market, and offering ready access
to the secondary markets through full faith and credit
securitization by the Government National Mortgage
Association. FHAs market share soared to 22 percent at
the end of 2008.
FHAs presence has supported the purchase market

and enabled existing homeowners to re-finance at todays
lower rates. If not for such re-financing options, many homeowners would face higher risk of foreclosure due to the
less favorable terms of their current mortgages.
FHAs reverse mortgage programits Home Equity
Conversion Mortgage program, or HECMhas grown
steadily throughout the decade. This program allows elderly homeowners to tap their home equity to help meet
their retirement needs. FHA has successfully pioneered
an innovative product that has served many borrowers.
From a small pilot started in 1990, the program grew into
a $24 billion program annually by 2008. This program
growth is attributable to a combination of factors: the
sharp growth in home equity attributable to strong housing price appreciation through most of the decade, the
growing population of eligible elderly homeowners, and
increased marketing efforts by lenders offering the product.
While the provision of FHA insurance is serving a
valuable role in addressing the needs of the present, the
potential return of conventional finance to the mortgage
market --with appropriate safeguards for consumers and
investors including proper assessment and disclosure of
risk-- would broaden both the options available to borrowers and the sources of capital to fund those options.
Nevertheless, FHA will continue to play an important
role in the mortgage market going forward.
FHAs Budget Costs
Throughout the recent period of stress in the mortgage
market and into the Budgets projections for 2010, FHA,
like all other mortgage market participants, has faced significant financial risk and incurred large costs associated
with defaults. FHA made several improvements to its
forecasting abilities and used its analysis to identify particularly high-cost mortgages. The estimates for FHAs
budgetary effects have been improved and in doing so additional costs have been identified and reported. Since
1992, the net cost of FHA Mutual Mortgage single-family
insurance has been re-estimated and increased by a total
of $29 billion excluding interest.
FHA improved its projections of default claims, correcting a structural under-estimation and producing finegrained data on the relationship between underwriting
variables and subsequent loan performance. These reviews also shed light on the high costs of Seller-Financed
Downpayment Assistance Loans that, having both ex-
tremely high claim rates (over 30 percent in some cohorts) and poor recoveries on claims, contributed greatly
to the re-estimates. (These loans are distinct from downpayment assistance provided by government agencies.)
The upward cost re-estimates occurred even as the housing market in general was prospering through the middle
part of this decade and strong house price growth increased the proceeds FHA took in from foreclosure sales.
As more borrowers opted for non-prime private products,
FHAs market share dwindled and its proportion of borrowers with Seller-Financed Downpayment Assistance
grew sharply.
One of the major benefits of an FHA-insured mortgage
is that it provides an option for borrowers who only make
a modest downpayment, but show that they are creditworthy and have sufficient income to afford the house
they want to buy. The disadvantage to these low downpayment mortgages (most FHA loans have less than five
percent down) is that they have little in the way of an
equity cushion should house prices decline. When normal
income changes from job loss or divorce occur, the limited
equity cushion associated with low downpayments make
mortgage defaults more likely.
FHA has safeguards (such as documenting income)
to protect it from the worst credit-risk exposure, such
as that experienced in the subprime and Alt-A markets.
All parties that have credit-risk, however, have been significantly hurt by the recent house price depreciation
and the prospect of continued weakness in the nearterm. FHAs exposure is more limited, however, due to
a relatively lower number of mortgages in higher cost
markets and historically low levels of originations until
2008. Moreover, even with growing proportions of SellerFinanced Downpayment Assistance Loans in its portfolio,
FHAs portfolio performance has experienced lower levels
of defaults than the subprime sector, and less significant
declines in performance than Alt-A loans. Accordingly,
the Budgets re-estimates of FHA costs incorporate prudent projections of risk.
The FHA reverse mortgage product, HECMs, has experienced significant cost increases. This product displays
unique risksits borrowers generally make no payments
until their home is sold, and its costs are particularly
sensitive to long-term house price appreciation. As the
average term of a HECM is longer than a forward mortgage, trends in house prices may compound, creating a
proportionally larger effect on costs than for the forward
program. The decline in house prices has adversely affected the projected credit performance of HECMs. As a
result, in 2010 the program has a positive subsidy rate
for the first time and the Budget proposes an indefinite
appropriation of credit subsidy to ensure demand for this
program is met by FHA.
Combining all these factors, FHA recorded a re-estimate excluding interest of $9 billion in 2009 in the expected costs of its outstanding portfolio of insurance on
forward mortgage activity. In addition, the FHA General
and Special Risk Insurance Fund was re-estimated for
an additional $6 billion, excluding interest, the bulk of
which was caused by projected HECM losses. Under the
45
provisions of the Federal Credit Reform Act, these costs
are recorded as mandatory outlays in the year the re-estimates are performed and will increase the 2009 deficit.
These re-estimate costs are analogous to private lenders
increasing their reserves to cover expected losses on their
loan portfolio. According to its annual actuarial analysis,
despite these estimates, FHA has still maintained adequate capital ratios (a measure of the economic value of
the fund relative to mortgage insurance in force), which
fell from over 6 percent in 2007 to just over 3 percent in
2008. In these turbulent times it is important to carefully monitor capital adequacy measures, even while recognizing that unlike private lenders, the guarantee on FHA
and other federal loans is backed by the full faith and
credit of the Federal Government, and is not dependent
on capital reserves.
Continued short-term weakness in house prices and
a long-term expectation that price appreciation will rebound to a modest rate of growth also increases risks on
new FHA loan guarantees endorsed in 2010. The cost
effects identified in the re-estimates of the existing FHA
portfolio also inform the credit subsidy estimates for new
activity in both forward mortgages and HECMs.
Recent Program Changes
FHAs authorities and the terms of its loans were significantly amended in 2008 by the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act (HERA). The most significant in the nearterm is a substantial increase in the overall maximum
dollar amount of an individual mortgage from $362,790
to $625,000 in higher priced metropolitan areas. (A temporary limit of $729,750, enacted in response to the financial crisis, is in effect during calendar year 2009.) This increase will enable FHA to continue to offer its insurance
to lower and middle-market purchasers in high-priced areas where FHA was previously not a practical option due
to the lack of homes priced under the national FHA limit.
HERA also explicitly authorizes FHA to offer riskbased premia that vary with the risk of default, as indicated by the borrowers downpayment percentage and
credit history. Though Congress enacted a delay in the
implementation of this measure, risk-based pricing holds
the potential to create more opportunities for potential
homeowners who may face limited mortgage options. For
example, first-time buyers with a strong credit record but
little savings could finance a higher percent of the purchase than FHA currently allows. Alternatively, a borrower with a poor credit history but who has accumulated
savings for a larger downpayment could qualify for more
favorable terms with FHA than are available in the conventional market.
Such a flexible premium structure is a way to more
fairly price the FHA guarantee to individual borrowers. It
creates incentives (lower premium payments) for borrowers to take steps to improve their credit or save more for a
downpayment. At the same time it eliminates the current
incentive for higher-risk borrowers to use FHA because
they are undercharged relative to the risk they pose.
HERA also terminated Seller-Financed Downpayment
Assistance mortgages. HUD had found in its actuarial
46
review that these loans defaulted at a rate exceeding 30
percent. A GAO report also found that such loans were
circular financing arrangements that circumvented FHA
downpayment requirements by inflating the cost to provide the funds for this assistance. Termination of this
type of downpayment assistance is beneficial to the credit
subsidy effects of FHA, saving over $1 billion in estimated
annual subsidy costs.
In addition, HERA simplified downpayment requirements and created a homeowner minimum cash investment of 3.5 percent. This retention of a downpayment
helps protect FHA from defaults. While this is a minimal requirement, the notion of borrowers having skin
in the game is important. As both the Seller-Financed
Downpayment Assistance loans and the recent explosion
in loans containing negative equity illustrate, the lack of
such investment is harmful to loan performance.
Finally, HERA created the Hope for Homeowners program, designed to offer a new FHA product to borrowers
paying a very high share of their income on their mortgage and therefore at risk of default. FHA and its partner
entities on the programs board have made strong efforts
to implement this program but participation thus far
has been minimal. The Administration supports modifications to the program to make it more attractive while
retaining important safeguards against excessive risk.
These amendments include more underwriting flexibility
and lower premia and appreciation sharing assessments.
VA Housing Program
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assists veterans, members of the Selected Reserve, and active duty
personnel in purchasing homes as recognition of their
service to the Nation. The housing program substitutes
the Federal guarantee for the borrowers down payment,
making the lending terms more favorable than loans without a VA guarantee. VA provided 102,306 zero down payment loans in 2008. Both loan volume and the number of
borrowers increased significantly in 2008, as the recent
tightening of the credit markets made the VA-guaranteed
loan program more attractive to eligible homebuyers. VA
provided $36 billion in guarantees to assist 178,945 borrowers in 2008, compared with $24 billion and 129,216
borrowers in 2007.
To help veterans retain their homes and avoid the expense and damage to their credit resulting from foreclosure, VA intervenes aggressively to reduce the likelihood
of foreclosures when loans are referred to VA after missing three payments. VAs actions resulted in 54 percent of
such delinquent loans avoiding foreclosure in 2008.
Rural Housing Service
The U.S. Department of Agricultures Rural Housing
Service (RHS) offers direct and guaranteed loans and
grants to help very low- to moderate-income rural residents buy and maintain adequate, affordable housing. The
single-family guaranteed loan program guarantees up to
90 percent of a private loan for low- to moderate-income
(115 percent of median income or less) rural residents. In
2008, nearly $7.3 billion in assistance was provided by
RHS for homeownership loans and loan guarantees; $6.2

billion in guarantees went to more than 67,000 households.
Historically, RHS has offered both direct and guaranteed homeownership loans. However, the direction
of Rural Developments single-family housing mortgage
assistance over the last two decades has been towards
guaranteed loans. The single-family housing guaranteed
loan program was newly authorized in 1990 at $100 million and has grown into a $6 billion plus guaranteed loan
program annually. This program allows low- to moderateincome rural residents to buy or refinance a home. The
2010 Budget maintains the approximate 2009 loan level
of $6.2 billion. This level of funding is expected to support
about 56,000 homeownership opportunities in 2010.
The 2010 single-family direct loan program will also
be maintained at the approximate 2009 loan level of $1.1
billion. This level of funding is expected to support about
10,000 homeownership opportunities in 2010. There are
no Federal single-family direct loan home ownership programs for urban areas. The 502 direct loan program is
the only federal program that can provide lower income
rural residents with loans at interest rates down to as low
as 1 percent. The program has been successful at helping
the on the cusp borrower obtain a mortgage, yet encourages graduation to private credit as the borrowers income
and equity in their home increase over time.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided funding for the single-family housing program sufficient to support approximately $1 billion in direct loans
and $10 billion in guaranteed loans. This level of funding
is expected to support about 100,000 homeownership opportunities, beginning in 2009.
The 2010 Budget also supports multifamily housing
construction loans, multifamily housing direct loans,
farm labor housing direct loans, and multifamily housing
loan guarantees. In addition, over $1 billion is provided in
rental assistance grants, which supports the direct loans
by ensuring that the rental assistance contracts with the
property owners are renewed. This will ensure that rental
subsidies continue for the eligible tenants of the USDA
financed properties.
Government-Sponsored Enterprises in the
Housing Market
Homeownership has long been recognized as an important part of the American economy and part of the
American dream. However, it has not always been within reach for the average American. During the Great
Depression, housing markets were in turmoil. A typical
mortgage required a down payment of around 50 percent
and a balloon payment of principal within a few years.
Limitations in financial and communication technology
and restrictions on financial institutions made it difficult for surplus funds in one part of the country to be
shifted to other parts of the country to finance residential housing. Starting in 1932, the Congress responded
by creating a series of entities and programs that together promoted the development of long-term, amortizing mortgages and facilitated the movement of capital to
support housing finance.
A key element of this response was the creation of the

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1934. Another
element was the establishment of several entities designed to develop secondary mortgage markets and to
facilitate the movement of capital into housing finance.
These entities were chartered by the Congress with public missions and endowed with certain benefits that give
them competitive advantages when compared with fully
private companies.
The Federal Home Loan Bank System, created in 1932,
is comprised of twelve individual banks with shared liabilities. Together they lend money to financial institutionsmainly banks and thriftsthat are involved in
mortgage financing to varying degrees, and they also finance some mortgages on their own balance sheets. The
Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae,
created in 1938, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, or Freddie Mac, created in 1970, were established to support the stability and liquidity of a secondary
market for residential mortgage loans. Fannie Maes and
Freddie Macs public missions were later broadened to
promote affordable housing. Together these three GSEs
currently are involved, in one form or another, with nearly one half of the $11-plus trillion residential mortgages
outstanding in the U.S. today. Their share of outstanding
residential mortgage debt peaked at 54 percent in 2003.
Subsequently, originations of subprime and non-traditional mortgages led to a surge of private-label MortgageBacked Securities (MBS), reducing Fannie Maes and
Freddie Macs market share. Recent disruptions in the financial market, however, have led to a resurgence of their
market share.
The growing stress in the mortgage markets over the
last two years also reduced the GSEs capital, and responsive legislation enacted last summer strengthened
GSE regulation and provided the Treasury Department
with authorities to bolster the GSEs financial condition. In September 2008 their regulator put Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac under Federal conservatorship, and
Treasury began to exercise its GSE assistance authorities. The Budget continues to reflect the GSEs as nonbudgetary entities, though their status will continue to
be reviewed. All of the current federal assistance being
provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements and the
GSE MBS purchase program, are shown on-budget, and
discussed below.
Mission
The mission of the housing GSEs is to support certain
aspects of the U.S. mortgage market. Fannie Mae and
Freddie Macs mission is to promote affordable housing,
and provide liquidity and stability to the secondary mortgage market. Currently, they engage in two major lines
of business.
1. Credit Guarantee BusinessFannie Mae and
Freddie Mac guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on mortgage-backed securities
(MBS). They create MBS by either buying and pooling whole mortgages or by entering into swap ar-
47
rangements with mortgage originators. Over time
these MBS held by the public have averaged about
one-quarter of the U.S. mortgage market, and as of
December 31, 2008 they totaled $3.7 trillion (almost
one-third of the mortgage market).
2. Mortgage Investment BusinessFannie Mae and
Freddie Mac manage retained mortgage portfolios
composed of their own MBS, MBS issued by others,
and individual mortgages. The GSEs finance the
purchase of assets held in their portfolios through
debt issued to the credit markets. As of December
31, 2008, these retained mortgages, financed largely
by GSE debt, totaled $1.6 trillion.
The mission of the Federal Home Loan Bank System
is broadly defined as promoting housing finance, and the
System also has specific requirements to support affordable housing. Its principal business remains lending (secured by mortgages) to regulated depository institutions
and insurance companies engaged in residential mortgage finance to varying degrees.
The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(HERA) expanded direct federal support for affordable
housing by authorizing a 4.2 basis point assessment on
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac originations in order to fund
a newly authorized Housing Trust Fund and a Capital
Magnet Fund, as well as to offset the costs of FHAs Hope
for Homeowners program. However, given the current
financial situation of the GSEs these assessments have
been indefinitely suspended. The Budget proposes funding for both of the new programs that would have been
funded through these assessments, as well as legislative
expansion of the Hope for Homeowners program.
Regulatory Reform
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
(OFHEO) was established in 1992 as an independent
agency within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to oversee the safety and soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while HUD was
responsible for mission oversight and the development
of GSE affordable housing goals. The Federal Housing
Finance Board (FHFB), established in 1989, oversaw the
Federal Home Loan Bank System. The 2008 Housing and
Economic Recovery Act (HERA) reformed and strengthened the GSEs safety and soundness regulator by creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), a new
independent regulator for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
the Federal Home Loan Banks. The FHFA authorities
consolidate and expand upon the regulatory and supervisory roles of the previous three distinct bodies. FHFA
has been given substantial authority and discretion to
influence the size and composition of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac investment portfolios through the establishment and compliance monitoring of housing goals
and capital requirements. FHFA is now required to issue
housing goals for each of the regulated enterprises with
respect to single-family and multi-family mortgages and
has the authority to require a corrective housing plan
48
if an enterprise does not meet its goals and statutory reporting requirements, and in some instances impose civil
money penalties. As of March 31, 2009 FHFA had not yet
promulgated new housing goals for the enterprises. The
expanded authorities of FHFA also include the ability to
place any of the regulated enterprises into conservatorship or receivership based on a finding of under-capitalization or a number of other factors. HERA also provided
temporary authority for the U.S. Department of Treasury
to purchase securities or other obligations of Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks through
December 31, 2009, upon a finding that such action is required to preserve the stability of the financial market,
prevent disruption to the availability of mortgage finance,
and protect taxpayers.
Conservatorship
On September 6, 2008, FHFA placed Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac into conservatorship. This action was taken
in response to the GSEs declining capital adequacy and
to preserve the safety and soundness of the GSEs and
their role in the secondary mortgage market. HERA provides that as conservator FHFA may take any action that
is necessary to return Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to a
sound and solvent condition and to preserve and conserve
the assets of each firm. FHFA has assumed the powers of
the Board and shareholders at Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac and appointed new chief executive officers at the two
firms.
Department of Treasury GSE Programs under HERA
On September 7, 2008, the U.S. Treasury launched
three new programs to provide temporary financial support to the GSEs under the temporary authority provided
in HERA.
1. Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements
with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Treasury entered into agreements with Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac to make investments of up to $100
billion in senior preferred stock in each GSE in order
to ensure that each company maintains a positive net
worth. In exchange for the substantial funding commitment the Treasury received $1 billion in preferred
stock for each GSE and warrants to purchase up to a
79.9 percent share of common stock at a nominal price.
On February 18, 2009 Treasury announced that the
funding commitments for these agreements would be
increased to $200 billion each. In total, as of March 31,
2009, $59.8 billion has been paid to the GSEs, and the
redemption face value of Treasurys preferred stock
has increased accordingly.
2. GSE MBS Purchase Programs
Treasury initiated a temporary program to purchase MBS issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
which carry the GSEs standard guarantee against default. The purpose of the program is to promote liquidity in the mortgage market and, thereby, affordable homeownership by stabilizing the interest rate spreads
between mortgage rates and Treasuries. The Budget

estimates that Treasury will purchase $314 billion in
MBS before the authority for this program expires on
December 31, 2009. There is no prescribed volume limitation for this program.
3. GSE Lending Facility
Treasury promulgated the terms of a temporary secured lending credit facility available to Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The
facility is intended to serve as an ultimate liquidity
backstop to the GSEs if necessary. While there is no
prescribed volume limitation for this program, the
Budget does not estimate that any loans will be issued
through this facility. The authority for Treasury to issue loans expires on December 31, 2009.
Federal Reserve Agency Mortgage-Backed
Securities and Direct GSE Obligation Purchase
Programs
On November 25, 2008, the Federal Reserve Board announced new programs to purchase up to $500 billion in
agency MBS, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and
Ginnie Mae issuances, and up to $100 billion in direct obligations of the GSEs. On March 18, 2009 the Federal
Reserve Board announced that the purchase targets for
these program will be increased to up to $1.25 trillion
and $200 billion respectively. As of March 19, 2009 the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported $201.5 billion in net purchases of MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae
or Freddie Mac and $46.8 billion in GSE debt, including
$11.1 billion from the Federal Home Loan Banks. The
goal of these programs is to provide support to mortgage
and housing markets and to foster improved conditions in
financial markets more generally.
Recent GSE Role in Administration Initiatives to
Relieve the Foreclosure Crisis
While under conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac have continued to play a leading role in government and market initiatives to prevent homeowners who
can no longer afford to make their mortgage payments
from losing their homes. On November 11, 2008 the U.S.
Department of Treasury, FHFA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and the mortgage industrys HOPE NOW Alliance jointly
announced the Streamlined Modification Program (SMP).
The SMP established industry standards for voluntary
mortgage modifications to assist distressed borrowers by
reducing their monthly mortgage payments to no more
than 38 percent of a borrowers gross monthly income.
However, only a small number of modifications have been
initiated under the SMP program. The limited success of
the SMP program is due in part to restrictions in securitization agreements on mortgage servicers regarding permissible modifications. These restrictions include requiring a finding of imminent default or a demonstration that
the net present value to the investor would be maximized
before a loan can be modified.
In March, the Administration announced its Making
Home Affordable (MHA) program, which includes the
49
Home Affordable Modification Program (HMP) and the

Home Affordable Refinance Program (HRP). Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac are participating in the HMP
both for their own mortgage books and as the Treasury
Departments agents. (See Section IV for more information).
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also integral to the
HRP. Under the program borrowers with a mortgage
that is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and with a
current loan-to-value (LTV) ratio up to 105 percent may
be eligible to refinance their mortgage to take advantage
of the current low interest rate environment. The previous LTV limit was 80 percent without a credit enhancement such as private mortgage insurance. Declining
house prices and capital constraints among the private
mortgage insurers have made it difficult for borrowers to
obtain such insurance. Under this program, borrowers
whose mortgages are already owned or guaranteed by
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may be eligible to refinance
their mortgage without obtaining new or additional mortgage insurance even if their current loan-to-value ratio
is between 80 and 105 percent. The Budget estimates
that the Home Affordable Refinance Program will facilitate refinancing at current market interest rates for up
to 4 to 5 million borrowers with LTV ratios above 80 percent whose first mortgages are owned or guaranteed by
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
of the GSEs was due in large part to the funding advantages arising from a public perception of a Federal guarantee of their obligations.
Risks that GSEs Face

Like other financial institutions, the GSEs face a full
range of risks, including market risk, credit risk, and operational risk. The housing market downturn in the last
two years has significantly increased the credit risk for
mortgage delinquencies and defaults faced by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. Systemic risk is the risk that liquidity or solvency problems at a financial institution or
group of institutions could lead to problems more widely
in the financial system or economythe risk that a small
problem could multiply to a point where it could jeopardize the countrys economic well-being. Before conservatorship, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed a significant
systemic risk because of their size, high leverage and
the critical role of mortgage financing in the economy.
However, this risk has been substantially reduced as
a result of the additional risk capital provided to them
through the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements
with the U.S. Department of Treasury.
The GSEs borrow huge amounts from various types
of investors, and the health of the housing market critically affects the overall economic activity. Thus, financial
trouble at one or more of the GSEs could unsettle not only
the mortgage finance markets but also other vital parts
of the financial system and economy. As of December 31,
2008 their combined debt and guaranteed MBS totaled
$5.5 trillion, about as large as the total publicly held debt
of the United States. Historically, investors in GSE debt
have included thousands of banks, institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds, foreign
governments and millions of individuals through mutual
funds and 401k investments. The investor-fueled growth
The Department of Education (ED) helps finance student loans through two major programs: the Federal
Family Education Loan (FFEL) program and the William
D. Ford Federal Direct Student Loan (Direct Loan) program. Eligible institutions of higher education may participate in one or both programs. Loans are available
to students regardless of income. However, borrowers
with low family incomes are eligible for loans where the
Federal Government subsidizes loan interest costs while
borrowers are in school, during a six-month grace period
after graduation, and during certain deferment periods.
Historically, the FFEL program provides loans through
an administrative structure involving over 3,600 lenders,
35 State and private guaranty agencies, and over 5,000
participating schools. In the FFEL program, banks and
other eligible lenders loan private capital to students
and parents, guaranty agencies insure the loans, and the
Federal Government reinsures the loans against borrower default. Lenders bear some of the default risk on all
new loans, and the Federal Government is responsible for
the remainder. ED also makes administrative payments
to guaranty agencies and, in specific circumstances, pays
interest subsidies on behalf of borrowers to lenders.
The William D. Ford Direct Student Loan program
was authorized by the Student Loan Reform Act of 1993.
Under the Direct Loan program, the Federal Government
provides loan capital directly to nearly 1,100 schools,
which then disburse loan funds to students. The program
offers a variety of flexible repayment plans including income-contingent repayment, under which annual repayment amounts vary based on the income of the borrower
Future of the GSEs

The future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is uncertain. There are a number of options for their reform,
ranging from returning to their previous status as GSEs
with the paired interests of maximizing returns for private share holders while pursuing public policy home
ownership goals, to a gradual wind-down of their operations and liquidation of their assets. Other options for
reform include outright nationalization by incorporating
the GSEs functions into a federal agency; a public utility
model where the government regulates the GSEs profit
margin, sets guarantee fees and provides explicit backing
for GSE commitments; a conversion to providing insurance for covered bonds, debt instruments that are back
by expected cash flows similar to MBS, but recorded on
the issuers balance sheet; and the dissolution of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac into many smaller companies.
The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress, the regulatory community, and the mortgage
industry to determine the best possible long-term role for
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Education Credit Programs
50
and payments can be made over 25 years with any residual balances forgiven.
Due to significant disruptions in the credit markets, in
early 2008 FFEL lenders expressed concerns that there
would be insufficient capital to make FFEL loans to all
eligible students in the 2008-2009 academic year. In response, Congress enacted the Ensuring Continued Access
to Student Loans Act (ECASLA) which provided ED with
the authority to purchase student loans. ED used this
authority to establish several temporary programs intended to ensure the availability of student loans. For the
2008-2009 academic year, the Department created a Loan
Participation Interest program, where it purchased a 100
percent interest in any eligible FFEL loan originated during the academic year. Once the loan is fully disbursed,
or before this program expires at the end of the academic
year, the lender can either redeem EDs interest in a loan
plus a yield of Commercial Paper plus 50 basis points or
pledge the entire loan to ED in return for compensation of
incurred expenses (such as origination and servicing) less
EDs yield. Between this program and the Direct Loan
program, over 75 percent of federal student loan volume
in the 2008-2009 academic year will be financed by the
Department of Education. The Department established a
Purchase Commitment program through which it would
commit to purchase any eligible loans originated by a
FFEL lender during the 2008-2009 academic year for face
value plus any incurred expenses. The Department also
established a short-term version of this program to purchase up to $6 billion in loans originated in the 2007-2008
academic year.
Given the continued concerns about liquidity in the
financial market, Congress extended ECASLA through
the 2009-2010 academic year. Using this authority, the
Department replicated the Loan Participation Interest
program and the Loan Purchase Commitment program for
the 2009-2010 academic year. In addition, the Department
announced that it would use the ECASLA authority to
support an Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Conduit.
This conduit will facilitate financial transactions similar
to those involved in a typical securitization: investors purchase commercial paper (backed by student loan assets)
while the conduit uses these proceeds to pay interest to
other Investors once the commercial paper matures and
to purchase additional student loans. Though the hope is
that this Conduit will provide liquidity to FFEL lenders
without federal intervention, the Department, using its
ECASLA authority, will serve as a buyer-of-last-resort in
cases where the Conduit is unable to refinance maturing
commercial paper. The Department of Education will be
conducting a full review of the Conduit, with a full report
to be completed by June 30, 2009.
For all subsequent federal student loan originations
beginning with the 2010-2011 academic year, the 2010
Presidents Budget proposes to end subsidies currently
paid to FFEL lenders. Enacting this proposal would save
taxpayers an estimated $24 billion over five years and
$48 billion over 10 years. Originating all loans through
the Federal Direct Loan program will ensure that student
loans will continue to be available to all eligible students
without risk of disruption due to turmoil in the financial

markets. ED is already making preparations for this
transition by acquiring greater loan servicing capacity
that will be in place by the summer of 2009. The 2010
request includes additional administrative funds to pay
for these increased servicing costs.
Business and Rural Development Credit Programs
and GSEs
The Federal Government guarantees small business
loans to promote entrepreneurship. The Government
also offers direct loans and loan guarantees to farmers
who may have difficulty obtaining credit elsewhere and
to rural communities that need to develop and maintain
infrastructure. Two GSEs, the Farm Credit System and
the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, increase
liquidity in the agricultural lending market.
Small Business Administration
The Small Business Administration (SBA) helps entrepreneurs start, sustain, and grow small businesses.
As a gap lender SBA works to supplement market lending and provide access to credit where private lenders
are reluctant to do so without a Government guarantee.
Additionally, SBA helps home and business-owners, as
well as renters, cover the uninsured costs of recovery from
disasters through its direct loan program.
The 2009 Budget requests $779 million, including administrative funds, for SBA to leverage more than $29 billion in financing for small businesses and disaster victims.
The 7(a) General Business Loan program will support
$17.5 billion in guaranteed loans while the 504 Certified
Development Company program will support $7.5 billion
in guaranteed loans for fixed-asset financing. SBA will
supplement the capital of Small Business Investment
Companies (SBICs) with $3 billion in long-term, guaranteed loans for venture capital investments in small businesses. At the end of 2008, SBAs outstanding balance of
direct and guaranteed loans totaled $88 billion.
Consistent with the overall credit markets, SBAs
guaranteed lending has declined in 2009 as the economy
worsened and lending became constricted. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided significant support for small business credit programs, to help spur lending to small businesses. This authority included credit
subsidy budget authority (BA) to temporarily raise guarantee percentages on some 7(a) loans, and reduce fees in
the 7(a) and 504 programs. SBA estimates the Recovery
Act funding will support approximately $8.7 billion in
7(a) loans and $3.6 billion in 504 loans.
The Administration has also dedicated significant resources from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
to ensure a functioning secondary market for small business loans. The Treasury Department plans to make up
to $15 billion in direct purchases to unlock the secondary
market for the guaranteed portions of 7(a) loans and the
private, first mortgage loan portion of 504 projects. These
purchases will provide lenders additional liquidity to extend new credit to small businesses.
The Budget builds on these efforts by providing $80

million in credit subsidy BA to continue to execute the
7(a) program in Fiscal Year 2010 at the fully authorized
level. The Budget also requests $3 million in subsidy BA
and $10 million in technical assistance grant funds for
the Microloan program. The Microloan program provides
funds to non-profit intermediaries who in turn provide
loans of up to $35,000 to new entrepreneurs. While this
program provides borrowers critical start-up financing,
the program as structured in the past was expensive to
taxpayers. The Administration is committed to implementing reforms to make the program more performanceoriented and ensure borrowers receive the capital they
need.
The Budget also proposes to implement a pilot program
to test the guaranteed disaster loan program recently
authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-234). Conducting a small pilot will allow
SBA to test procedures and develop systems for future
use and partnerships with private lenders in the case of a
catastrophic disaster.
Finally, the Budget provides significant resources for
core agency operations to accelerate transactions and
safeguard taxpayers exposure. These include continued
procurement of a modern loan management and accounting system and additional funds to continue to streamline and automate information technology systems. The
Budget also requests funds for additional staffing in loan
servicing centers, to handle increased origination, servicing, guarantee purchase, and liquidation activities.
USDA Rural Infrastructure and Business
Development Programs
USDA provides grants, loans, and loan guarantees to
communities for constructing facilities such as healthcare clinics, day-care centers, and water systems. Direct
loans are available at lower interest rates for the poorest communities. These programs have very low default
rates. The cost associated with them is due primarily to
subsidized interest rates that are below the prevailing
Treasury rates.
The program level for the Water and Wastewater
treatment facility loan and grant program in the 2010
Presidents Budget is $1.6 billion. These funds are available to communities of 10,000 or fewer residents. The
Community Facility Program is targeted to rural communities with fewer than 20,000 residents. It will have
a program level of $546 million in 2010. These program
levels are maintained at the approximately 2009 levels.
In addition, the Recovery Act provided funding for about
$3.7 billion in Water and Wastewater and an estimated
$1.2 billion in the Community Facility program.
USDA also provides grants, direct loans, and loan guarantees to assist rural businesses, cooperatives, nonprofits,
and farmers in creating new community infrastructures,
and to diversify the rural economy and employment opportunities. In 2010, USDA proposes to provide over $1
billion in loan guarantees and direct loans to entities
that serve communities of 50,000 or less through the
Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program
51
and Intermediary Relending program. These loans are
structured to save/create jobs in rural economies. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided funding for an estimated $2.99 billion in B&I loan guarantees
and $20 million in Rural Business Enterprise grants, beginning in 2009.
The 2008 Farm Bill created or modified five rural
renewable energy and small business programs. The
Budget includes $122 million to support over $430 million in loans and grants for the following programs:
the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, the
Value-Added Agricultural Market Development Grant
Program, the Biorefinery Assistance Program, the Rural
Energy for America Program, and the Bioenergy Program
for Advanced Biofuels. These programs are targeted to
promote energy efficiencies, renewable energy, and small
business development in rural communities. The discretionary funding in the Budget is in addition to the $364
million to support $1.02 billion in loans and grants in
mandatory funds provided by the Farm Bill in 2010.
Electric and Telecommunications Loans
USDAs Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs provide loans for rural electrification, telecommunications,
distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband, and also
provide grants for distance learning and telemedicine
(DLT).
The Recovery Act provided USDA $2.5 billion to support broadband loans and grants for fiscal years 2009
and 2010. This funding is expected to provide new and
improved access to broadband services throughout rural
America, based on the most appropriate technology for
specific areas.
The Budget includes $6.6 billion in direct electric loans
for distribution, transmission, and improvements to existing generation facilities, $688 million in direct telecommunications loans, $532 million in broadband loans,
$13 million in broadband grants, and $30 million in DLT
grants.
Loans to Farmers
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) assists low-income
family farmers in starting and maintaining viable farming operations. Emphasis is placed on aiding beginning
and socially disadvantaged farmers. FSA offers operating
loans and ownership loans, both of which may be either
direct or guaranteed loans. Operating loans provide credit to farmers and ranchers for annual production expenses and purchases of livestock, machinery, and equipment
while farm ownership loans assist producers in acquiring
and developing their farming or ranching operations. As
a condition of eligibility for direct loans, borrowers must
be unable to obtain private credit at reasonable rates and
terms. As FSA is the lender of last resort, default rates
on FSA direct loans are generally higher than those on
private-sector loans. FSA-guaranteed farm loans are
made to more creditworthy borrowers who have access to
private credit markets. Because the private loan originators must retain 10 percent of the risk, they exercise care
in examining the repayment ability of borrowers. The
52
subsidy rates for the direct programs have been fluctuating over the past several years. These fluctuations are
mainly due to the interest component of the subsidy rate.
The number of loans provided by these programs has
varied over the past several years. In 2008, FSA provided
loans and loan guarantees to approximately 26,000 family farmers totaling $3.4 billion. The average size for farm
ownership loans continues to increase, with new customers
receiving the bulk of the benefits furnished, while the majority of assistance provided in the operating loan program
is to existing FSA farm borrowers. The demand for FSA
direct and guaranteed loans continues to be high. More
conservative credit standards and reduced profit margins
are moving additional applicants from commercial credit
to FSA direct programs. Also, the increase in market volatility and uncertainty is driving lenders to request guarantees in situations that they may not have in the past.
In 2010, FSA proposes to make $4.1 billion in direct and
guaranteed loans through discretionary programs.
Lending to beginning farmers was above target during
2008, especially in the direct farm ownership program,
which demonstrated a six-percent increase compared to
2007. In addition, commercial lending to beginning farmers in the guaranteed ownership program also increased
dramatically by 20 percent over 2007. Overall, lending to
beginning farmers was 12 percent above the 2007 level.
Lending to minority and women farmers was a significant portion of overall assistance, totaling $379 million
in loans and loan guarantees. Outreach efforts by FSA
field offices to promote and inform beginning and minority farmers of available FSA funding have resulted in increased lending to these groups.
In 2009, FSA received funding through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act to provide a total of $173
million in direct farm operating loans. These loans are used
to purchase items such as farm equipment, feed, seed, fuel
and other operating expenses and will stimulate rural economies by providing American farmers funds to operate.
FSA continues to evaluate the farm loan programs in
order to improve their effectiveness. As part of this effort,
FSA has undertaken an initiative to identify and develop
outcome metrics for the direct and guaranteed loan programs. FSA is also developing a nationwide continuing
education program for its loan officers to ensure they remain experts in agricultural lending. FSA will also be
transitioning all information technology applications for
direct loan servicing into a single, web-based application.
In addition to moving direct loan servicing to a modern
platform, the system will expand on existing capabilities
to include all special servicing options, and its implementation will allow FSA to better service its delinquent and
financially distressed borrowers.
The Farm Credit System and Farmer Mac
The Farm Credit System (FCS or System), including
the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer
Mac), is a Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE)
that enhances credit availability for the agricultural
sector. The FCS banks and associations provide production, equipment, and mortgage lending to farmers and
ranchers, aquatic producers, their cooperatives, related

businesses, and rural homeowners, while Farmer Mac
provides a secondary market for agricultural real estate
and rural housing mortgages. Because Farmer Mac is
governed by laws and regulations that are different from
those governing the banks, associations, and service entities that comprise the rest of the System, Farmer Mac is
discussed separately below.
The Farm Credit System (Banks and Associations)
The financial condition of the Systems banks and associations remains sound. The ratio of capital to assets
decreased to 13.4 percent as of September 30, 2008, from
14.8 percent as of September 30, 2007, as asset growth
outpaced capital growth. Capital consisted of $2.8 billion in restricted capital held by the Farm Credit System
Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) and $25 billion of unrestricted capitalin terms of amount, a record level.
For the first nine months of calendar 2008, net income
equaled $2.37 billion compared with $2.02 billion for the
same period of the previous year, primarily due to growth
in the loan portfolio and higher average earnings on assets. Between September 30, 2007 and September 30,
2008, non-performing loans as a percentage of total loans
outstanding increased from 0.43 percent to 0.65 percent,
primarily due to deterioration in the credit quality of
certain loans and a more volatile agricultural economic
environment. Assets have grown at a 12.5 percent annual rate over the past five years, while the number of
FCS institutions has decreased due to consolidation. As
of September 30, 2008, the System consisted of five banks
and 93 associations compared with seven banks and 104
associations in September 2002. Of the 98 FCS banks
and associations, 93 had one of the top two examination
ratings (1 or 2 in a 1-5 scale), while 5 FCS institutions had
a rating of 3.
The FCSIC ensures the timely payment of principal
and interest on FCS obligations on which the System
banks are jointly and severally liable. FCSIC manages the
Insurance Fund, which supplements the Systems capital
and the joint and several liability of the System banks.
On September 30, 2008, the assets in the Insurance Fund
totaled $2.84 billion. Of that amount $40 million was
allocated to the Allocated Insurance Reserve Accounts
(AIRAs). As of September 30, 2008, the Insurance Fund as
a percentage of adjusted insured debt was 1.74 percent in
the unallocated Insurance Fund and 1.77 percent including the AIRAs. This was below the statutory Secure Base
amount of 2 percent. During 2008 growth in System debt
has outpaced the capitalization of the Insurance Fund
that occurs through investment earnings and premiums.
Over the 12-month period ending September 30, 2008,
the Systems loans outstanding grew by $23.0 billion, or
17.0 percent, while over the past five years they grew by
$66.7 billion, or 73.1 percent. As required by law, borrowers are also stockholders of System banks and associations. As of September 30, 2008, the System had 472,066
stockholders. Loans to young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers represented 11.6 percent, 19.7 percent,
and 26.6 percent, respectively, of the total dollar volume
53
of farm loans outstanding at the end of calendar 2007.

The percentage of loans made to beginning farmers in
calendar 2007 increased slightly, compared with calendar
2006, while percentages of loans made to young and small
farmers were slightly lower. Young, beginning, and small
farmers are not mutually exclusive groups and, thus, cannot be added across categories. Maintaining special policies and programs for the extension of credit to young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers is a legislative
mandate for the System.
The System, while continuing to record strong earnings and capital growth, remains exposed to a variety of
risks associated with its portfolio concentration in agriculture and rural America. While the agricultural sector is currently healthy, it has become more risky with
the recent instability in the global financial markets, the
fluctuations in the value of the dollar, a recession, the
decline in commodity prices (including ethanol), and the
rapid rise in input costs. This sector is also subject to
possible new risks such as a reversal in the rapid rise
in farmland values, weather-related catastrophes, environmental risks related to global warming, and costly
regulations.
ruptcy. Current losses are not the result of negative developments in Farmer Macs program loan portfolio. Also
contributing to the net loss were fluctuations in the market value of financial derivatives and trading assets that
are now recognized in the income statement. The latter
losses are due to a change in accounting policy that was
instituted in November 2006, when Farmer Mac opted to
remove the impact of accounting for derivatives used as
hedges against interest rate movements.
Farmer Mac
Farmer Mac was established in 1988 as a federally
chartered institution belonging in the FCS to facilitate a
secondary market for farm real estate and rural housing
loans. The Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996 expanded Farmer Macs role from a guarantor of securities
backed by loan pools to a direct purchaser of mortgages,
enabling it to form pools to securitize. In May 2008, the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm
Bill) expanded Farmer Macs program authorities by allowing it to purchase and guarantee securities backed by
rural utility loans made by cooperatives.
Farmer Mac continues to meet core capital and regulatory risk-based capital requirements. As of September
30, 2008, Farmer Macs total program activity (loans
purchased and guaranteed, AgVantage bond assets, and
real estate owned) amounted to $9.8 billion, which represents an increase of 17 percent from the level a year ago.
Of total program activity, $2.8 billion were on-balance
sheet loans and agricultural mortgage-backed securities, and $7 billion were off-balance sheet obligations.
Total assets were $4.7 billion, with nonprogram investments accounting for $1.5 billion of those assets. Farmer
Macs net loss for first three quarters of calendar 2008
was $93 million, a significant decline from the same period in 2007 during which the reported net income was
$13.7 million.
The reported year-to-date loss amount is primarily
due to $102 million in other-than-temporary impairment
charges on securities held in Farmer Macs nonprogram
investment portfolio. These writedowns included an other-than-temporary impairment of $50 million on a Fannie
Mae floating rate preferred stock investment after it was
placed in conservatorship and an other-than-temporary
impairment of $52.4 million in a senior debt security from
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. after it declared bank-
Leveling the Playing Field

Federal export credit programs counter subsidies that
foreign governments, largely in Europe and Japan, provide their exporters, usually through export credit agencies (ECAs). The U.S. Government has worked since the
1970s to constrain official credit support through a multilateral agreement in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). This agreement
has significantly constrained direct interest rate subsidies and tied-aid grants. Further negotiations resulted
in a multilateral agreement that standardized the fees
for sovereign lending across all ECAs beginning in April
1999. Fees for non-sovereign lending, however, continue
to vary widely across ECAs and markets, thereby providing implicit subsidies.
The Export-Import Bank attempts to level the playing field strategically and to fill gaps in the availability
of private export credit. The Export-Import Bank provides export credits, in the form of direct loans or loan
guarantees, to U.S. exporters who meet basic eligibility
criteria and who request the Banks assistance. USDAs
Export Credit Guarantee Programs (also known as GSM
programs) similarly help to level the playing field. Like
programs of other agricultural exporting nations, GSM
programs guarantee payment from countries and entities
that want to import U.S. agricultural products but cannot
easily obtain credit.
International Credit Programs

Seven Federal agencies -- the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the Department of Defense, the Department of
State, the Department of the Treasury, the Agency for
International Development (USAID), the Export-Import
Bank, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) -- provide direct loans, loan guarantees, and insurance to a variety of foreign private and sovereign borrowers. These programs are intended to level the playing field for U.S. exporters, deliver robust support for U.S.
manufactured goods, stabilize international financial
markets, and promote sustainable development.
Stabilizing International Financial Markets

In todays global economy, the health and prosperity of the American economy depend importantly on the
stability of the global financial system and the economic
health of our major trading partners. The United States
contributes to orderly exchange arrangements and a stable system of exchange rates through the International
54
Monetary Fund and through financial support provided

by the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).
The ESF provides bridge loans to other countries
in times of short-term liquidity problems and financial
crises. A loan or credit may not be made for more than
six months in any 12-month period unless the President
gives the Congress a written statement that unique or
emergency circumstances require the loan or credit be for
more than six months.
In September 2008, Treasury opened a temporary
money market mutual fund guarantee program, which
guarantees the share price of any publicly offered eligible
money market mutual fundboth retail and institutionalthat applies for and pays a fee to participate in the
program. President George W. Bush approved the use of
existing authorities by Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
to make available as necessary the assets of the ESF to
guarantee the payment. (See Section IV for additional information.)
Using Credit to Promote Sustainable Development
Credit is an important tool in U.S. bilateral assistance to
promote sustainable development. USAIDs Development
Credit Authority (DCA) allows USAID to use a variety of
credit tools to support its development activities abroad.
DCA provides non-sovereign loan guarantees in targeted
cases where credit serves more effectively than traditional grant mechanisms to achieve sustainable development.
DCA is intended to mobilize host country private capital
to finance sustainable development in line with USAIDs
strategic objectives. Through the use of partial loan guarantees and risk sharing with the private sector, DCA
stimulates private-sector lending for financially viable
development projects, thereby leveraging host-country
capital and strengthening sub-national capital markets
in the developing world. While there is clear demand for
DCAs facilities in some emerging economies, the utilization rate for these facilities is still very low.
OPIC also supports a mix of development, employment,
and export goals by promoting U.S. direct investment in
developing countries. OPIC pursues these goals through

political risk insurance, direct loans, and guarantee products, which provide finance, as well as associated skills
and technology transfers. These programs are intended
to create more efficient financial markets, eventually encouraging the private sector to supplant OPIC finance in
developing countries. OPIC has also created a number of
investment funds that provide equity to local companies
with strong development potential.
Ongoing Coordination
International credit programs are coordinated through
two groups to ensure consistency in policy design and credit implementation. The Trade Promotion Coordinating
Committee (TPCC) works within the Administration to
develop a National Export Strategy to make the delivery
of trade promotion support more effective and convenient
for U.S. exporters.
The Interagency Country Risk Assessment System
(ICRAS) standardizes the way in which most agencies
budget for the cost associated with the risk of international lending. The cost of lending by these agencies is
governed by proprietary U.S. Government ratings, which
correspond to a set of default estimates over a given maturity. The methodology establishes assumptions about
default risks in international lending using averages of
international sovereign bond market data. The strength
of this method is its link to the market and an annual update that adjusts the default estimates to reflect the most
recent risks observed in the market.
Promoting Economic Growth and Poverty
Reduction through Debt Sustainability
The Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poorest Countries
(HIPC) Initiative reduces the debt of some of the poorest countries with unsustainable debt burdens that are
committed to economic reform and poverty reduction.
The 2010 Budget continues to support debt reduction for
countries that qualify under the HIPC Initiative.
III. INSURANCE PROGRAMS

Deposit Insurance
Federal deposit insurance promotes stability in the
U.S. financial system. Prior to the establishment of
Federal deposit insurance, depository institution failures
often caused depositors to lose confidence in the banking system and rush to withdraw deposits. Such sudden
withdrawals caused serious disruption to the economy.
In 1933, in the midst of the Great Depression, a system
of Federal deposit insurance was established to protect
small depositors and to prevent bank failures from causing widespread disruption in financial markets.
Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) insures deposits in banks and savings associations (thrifts) using the resources available in its Deposit
Insurance Fund (DIF). The National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) insures deposits (shares) in most

credit unions (certain credit unions are privately insured)
using the resources available in the National Credit
Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF). As of December
31, 2008, the FDIC insured $4.76 trillion of deposits at
8,315 commercial banks and thrifts, and the NCUA insured $610 billion of shares at 7,967 credit unions.
The NCUA also administers the Central Liquidity
Facility (CLF), which serves as a back-up lender for credit
unions when market sources of liquidity are unavailable.
By statute, the CLF is authorized to borrow up to 12 times
its subscribed capital stock and surplus (approximately
$41 billion as of 2008). Historically, however, Congress
has set the CLF borrowing limit for loans to credit unions
($1.5 billion) through annual appropriations acts.
55
Since its creation, the system has undergone a series

of reforms. More recently, the Deposit Insurance Reform
Act of 2005 allows the FDIC to better manage the DIF.
For example, the Act authorizes the FDIC to charge premiums for deposit insurance on a risk-adjusted basis, and
ensures that all financial institutions pay premiums for
Federal insurance on their insured deposits regardless of
the level of the DIF. The Act allows the FDIC additional
authority to set a reserve ratio (ratio of the deposit insurance fund to total insured deposits) within a range of
1.15 percent and 1.5 percent. Should the reserve ratio fall
below 1.15 percent, the FDIC is allowed additional time
to restore the DIF, and when it rises to 1.35 percent the
FDIC is required to rebate half of the premiums it collects.
Last year, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008 temporarily increased the insured deposit level
from $100,000 per account to $250,000, until December
31, 2009. Additionally, the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations
Act removed the $1.5 billion appropriations limit on the
use of NCUAs Central Liquidity Facility (CLF), effectively raising the CLFs lending limit to $41 billion under the
statutory formula.
Emergency Programs
Responding to the stress among financial institutions,
the FDIC and the NCUA have committed resources towards new programs that are intended to increase access
to credit, strengthen financial institutions, and restore
confidence in the housing sector (see Section IV for additional programmatic detail). These programs include:
FDIC:
3-year guarantee of qualifying bank and bank holding company senior unsecured debt issued prior to
October 31, 2009;
Removal of the insurance limit on participating
banks non-interest bearing transaction account deposits thru December 31, 2009;
NCUA:
Guarantee of certain unsecured debt of participating corporate credit unions issued from October 16,
2008 thru June 30, 2009;
Corporate credit union stabilization programs, including lending programs designed to increase liquidity at corporate credit unions.
Recent Performance of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Funds
There has been significant deterioration of conditions in the banking industry since summer 2007. As of
December 31, 2008, the FDIC classified 252 institutions
with $159 billion in aggregate assets as problem institutions (institutions with the highest risk ratings), a level
of problem assets almost four times higher than that in
December 2007. As of December 31, 2008, the DIF reserve
ratio stood at 0.40 percent, or $40.6 billion below the level
that would meet the target reserve ratio of 1.25 percent.
The National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (SIF),
the Federal fund for credit unions that is analogous to

the DIF for banks and thrifts, ended September 2008
with assets of $7.2 billion and an equity ratio of 1.28
percent, below the NCUA-set target ratio of 1.30 percent. Recent market volatility has seen an increase in
observed losses in the credit union industry. The number of problem institutions reported by the NCUA has
steadily risen since 2007, and the SIF has set aside more
than $6 billion to cover potential insurance losses, significantly more than the $290 million in loss expenses
incurred in calendar year 2008.
Restoration Plans
On September 30, 2008, the FDIC reported that the
DIF reserve ratio had fallen below the minimum level
of 1.15 percent. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1817(b), the FDIC
proposed a plan to restore the DIF to 1.15 percent within 5 years (i.e., prior to October 5, 2013) by increasing
annual insurance premiums to an effective rate of 13.5
basis points. Citing the significant strains on banks, on
February 27, 2009, the FDIC extended the restoration
plan horizon to seven years (October 5, 2015) for restoring the DIF. The FDIC also announced both an increase
to the regular assessment from 13.5 basis points to an
average assessment of 15 basis points, and a one-time
special assessment on the banking industry of 20 basis
points in order to increase the resources available to the
DIF for resolving bank failures.
The Budget proposes to increase the FDICs borrowing
authority from $30 billion to $100 billion. By enhancing
the FDICs ability to finance expenses for resolving failed
institutions, it would allow the FDIC to grant a deposit
insurance premium reprieve in the near term when bank
capital is already strained. This temporary reprieve
would be followed by steady increases in insurance premium assessments as the economy and bank health
recover. The Budget projects the DIF reserve ratio will
return to 1.15 percent in 2015 and 1.25 percent in 2016.
On September 30, 2008, the NCUA reported that the
Share Insurance Fund (SIF) reserve ratio had fallen below the NCUA-set target ratio of 1.30 percent. Pursuant
to section 202(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Union Act, the
NCUA is required to assess a premium charge on member institutions if the equity ratio in the SIF falls below
1.2 percent, which it is projected to do in 2009.
The Budget reflects a proposal to both increase the
borrowing authority of the NCUA and permit a 7-year
restoration period to return the SIF equity ratio to 1.2
percent. The Budget proposal projects the NCUA levying
lower premiums in the near term and steadily increasing premiums through 2015. Under the proposal, the SIF
equity ratio would return to 1.2 percent in 2015 and 1.3
percent in 2016.
Pension Guarantees
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
insures pension benefits of workers and retirees in covered defined-benefit pension plans sponsored by privatesector employers. PBGC pays benefits, up to a guaran-
56
teed level, when a company with an underfunded pension

plan meets the legal criteria to transfer its obligations to
the pension insurance program. PBGCs claims exposure
is the amount by which qualified benefits exceed assets
in insured plans. In the near term, the risk of loss stems
from financially distressed firms with underfunded plans.
In the longer term, loss exposure results from the possibility that healthy firms become distressed and well-funded
plans become underfunded due to inadequate contributions, poor investment results, or increased liabilities.
PBGC monitors companies with underfunded plans
and acts to protect the interests of the pension insurance programs stakeholders where possible. Under its
Early Warning Program, PBGC works with companies to
strengthen plan funding or otherwise protect the insurance program from avoidable losses. However, PBGCs authority to prevent undue risks to the insurance program
is limited.
As a result of a flawed pension funding system and
exposure to losses from financially troubled plan sponsors, PBGCs single-employer program incurred substantial losses from underfunded plan terminations in 2001
through 2006. The table below shows the ten largest plan
termination losses in PBGCs history. Nine of the ten have
come since 2001.
The program currently has a $10.7 billion deficit in assets necessary to satisfy all claims made through 2008.
(Claims are the net cost of terminating a pension plan
the gap between its assets and liabilities.) This is compared to a $9.7 billion surplus at 2000 year-end. The current shortfall is actually a $2.4 billion improvement from
2007, due largely to an increase in discount rates that reduced the present value of PBGCs benefit liabilities and
the absence of major new terminations of underfunded
plans. PBGCs operating results are subject to significant
fluctuation from year to year, depending on the severity

of losses from plan terminations, changes in the interest
factors used to discount future benefit payments, investment performance, general economic conditions and other
factors such as changes in law. While the improvement
may give the impression that PBGCs financial condition has improved, in fact its long-term loss exposure and
flawed funding system continue to threaten its financial
sustainability.1
PBGC estimates its loss exposure to reasonably possible terminations (e.g., underfunded plans sponsored by
companies with credit ratings below investment grade)
at approximately $47 billion on September 30, 2008. For
FY 2008, this exposure was concentrated in the following
sectors: manufacturing (primarily automobile/auto parts,
and primary and fabricated metals), transportation (primarily airlines), and wholesale and retail trade.
Disaster Insurance
Flood Insurance
The Federal Government provides flood insurance
through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
which is administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Flood insurance is available to homeowners and businesses in communities that have adopted and
enforced appropriate flood plain management measures.
1 In addition, the airline relief provisions in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which
resulted in large plans previously classified as probable terminations being changed to the reasonably possible classification in FY 2006, likely postponed rather than eliminated losses, as it is
likely that the airlines will eventually relapse and present a claim to the PBGC. If PBGCs deficit
were calculated without regard to PPA airline provisions, PBGC estimates that its net deficit
shown in this report would be approximately $8 billion higher (assuming 2006 underfunding
levels for the specific airline plans remained constant).
Table 71. largeST 10 claimS againST THe PbgcS Single-emPloyer

inSurance Program 1975-2007
Top 10 Firms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United Airlines
Bethlehem Steel
US Airways
LTV Steel*
Delta Airlines
National Steel
Pan American Air
Trans World Airlines
Weirton Steel
Kaiser Aluminum
Top 10 Total
All Other Total
Fiscal Years
of Plan
Terminations
Claims
(by firm)
2005
2003
2003, 2005
2002, 2003, 2004
2006
2003
1991, 1992
2001
2004
2004, 2007
$7,503,711,171
3,654,380,116
2,684,542,754
2,134,985,884
1,740,482,711
1,275,628,286
841,082,434
668,377,106
640,480,970
602,132,764
21,745,804,196
13,193,241,357
Percent of Total
Claims
(1975-2007)
2150%
1050%
770%
610%
500%
370%
240%
190%
180%
170%
6220%
3780%
ToTal ............................................................................
$32,626,780,271
10000%
Sources: PBGC Fiscal Year Closing File (9/30/07), PBGC Case Administration System, and PBGC Participant System (PRISM).
Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100 percent.
Data in this table have been calculated on a firm basis and include all plans of each firm.
Values and distributions are subject to change as PBGC completes its reviews and establishes termination dates.
* Does not include 1986 termination of a Republic Steel plan sponsored by LTV
Coverage is limited to buildings and their contents. By

the end of 2008, the program had over 5.6 million policies
in more than 20,200 communities with over $1 trillion of
insurance in force.
Prior to the creation of the program in 1968, many factors made it cost prohibitive for private insurance companies alone to make affordable flood insurance available.
In response, the NFIP was established to make affordable
insurance coverage widely available. The NFIP requires
building standards and other mitigation efforts to reduce
losses, and operates a flood hazard mapping program to
quantify the geographic risk of flooding. These efforts
have made substantial progress. However, structures
built prior to flood mapping and NFIP floodplain management requirements, which make up 26 percent of the
total policies in force, pay less than fully actuarial rates.
A major DHS goal is to have property owners be compensated for flood losses through flood insurance, rather than through taxpayer-funded disaster assistance.
The marketing strategy aims to increase the number of
Americans insured against flood losses and improve retention of policies among existing customers. The strategy includes:
1. Provide financial incentives to expand the flood-insurance business to the private insurers that sell and
service flood policies for the Federal Government.
2. Conduct the national marketing and advertising
campaign, FloodSmart, which uses TV, radio, print
and online advertising, direct mailings, and public
relations activities to help overcome denial and resistance and increase demand.
3. Foster lender compliance with flood insurance requirements through training, guidance materials,
regular communication with lending regulators and
the lending community.
4. Conduct NFIP training for insurance agents via instructor-led seminars, online training modules, and
other vehicles.
5. Seek opportunities to simplify NFIP processes to
make it easier for agents to sell and consumers to
buy.
While these strategies have resulted in steady policy
growth over recent years, the growth slowed somewhat in
2008 due to the severe downturn in the economy.
DHS also has a multi-pronged strategy for reducing
future flood damage. The NFIP offers flood mitigation assistance grants to assist flood victims to rebuild to current building codes, including base flood elevations, thereby reducing future flood damage costs. In addition, two
grant programs targeted toward repetitive and severe
repetitive loss properties not only help owners of highrisk property, but also reduce the disproportionate drain
on the National Flood Insurance Fund these properties
cause through acquisition, relocation, or elevation. DHS
57
is working to ensure that all of the flood mitigation grant
programs are closely integrated, resulting in better coordination and communication with State and local governments. Further, through the Community Rating System,
DHS adjusts premium rates to encourage community and
State mitigation activities beyond those required by the
NFIP. These efforts, in addition to the minimum NFIP
requirements for floodplain management, save over $1
billion annually in avoided flood damages.
The programs reserve account, which is a cash fund,
has sometimes had expenses greater than its revenue,
forcing the NFIP to borrow funds from the Treasury in
order to meet claims obligations. While funds borrowed
during the 1970s were repaid by appropriations in the
early 1980s, from 1986 until 2005, the program was able
to repay all borrowed funds with interest from premium
dollars. However, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
generated more flood insurance claims than the cumulative number of claims from 1968 to 2004. These three
storms resulted in over 234,000 claims with total claims
payments expected to be approximately $20 billion. As
a result, the Administration and the Congress have increased the borrowing authority to $20.8 billion to date in
order to make certain that all claims could be paid.
The catastrophic nature of the 2005 hurricane season
has also triggered an examination of the program, and the
Administration is working with the Congress to improve
the program, based on the following principles: protecting
the NFIPs integrity by covering existing commitments;
phasing out subsidized premiums in order to charge fair
and actuarially sound premiums; increasing program
participation incentives and improving enforcement of
mandatory participation in the program; increasing risk
awareness by educating property owners; and reducing
future risks by implementing and enhancing mitigation
measures. The Administration looks forward to working
with the Congress to enact program reforms that further
mitigate the impact of flood damages and losses.
Crop Insurance
Subsidized Federal crop insurance administered by
USDAs Risk Management Agency (RMA) assists farmers in managing yield and revenue shortfalls due to bad
weather or other natural disasters. The program is a cooperative effort between the Federal Government and the
private insurance industry. Private insurance companies
sell and service crop insurance policies. These companies
rely on reinsurance provided by the Federal Government
and also by the commercial reinsurance market to manage
their individual risk portfolio. The Federal Government
reimburses private companies for a portion of the administrative expenses associated with providing crop insurance and reinsures the private companies for excess insurance losses on all policies. The Federal Government
also subsidizes premiums for farmers.
The Administrations 2010 Budget reflects specific legislative proposals that would reduce the Federal subsidy
to both farmers and the insurance companies in the following three ways:
58
Reduce premium subsidies on buy-up coverage by 5
percentage points.
Increase the governments share on underwriting
gains to 20 percent from 5 percent.
Reduce the face value premium on Catastrophic
Crop Insurance (CAT) by 25 percent and charge an
administrative fee on CAT equal to the greater of
$300 or 25 percent of the (restated) CAT premium,
subject to a maximum fee of $5,000.
In addition to these changes, the Farm Bill authorized
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) to have
the option of renegotiating the financial terms and conditions of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement with the
crop insurance companies during FY 2010. If the FCIC
exercises this authority, it could result in more efficiency
for risk sharing between the government and the crop insurance companies.
There are various types of insurance programs. The
most basic type of coverage is CAT, which compensates
the farmer for losses in excess of 50 percent of the individuals average yield at 55 percent of the expected market price. The CAT premium is entirely subsidized, and
farmers pay only an administrative fee. Higher levels of
coverage, called buy-up coverage, are also available. A
premium is charged for buy-up coverage. The premium
is determined by the level of coverage selected and varies
from crop to crop and county to county. For the ten principal crops, which accounted for about 80 percent of total
liability in 2008, the most recent data show that over 79
percent of eligible acres participated in the crop insurance program.
RMA offers both yield and revenue-based insurance
products. Revenue insurance programs protect against
loss of revenue stemming from low prices, poor yields, or
a combination of both. These programs extend traditional
multi-peril or yield crop insurance by adding price variability to production history.
RMA is continuously trying to develop new products
or expand existing products in order to cover more types
of crops. One of the innovative products being refined for
2009 is the Biotech Endorsement (BE) for non-irrigated
corn intended to be harvested for grain, including an extension of the endorsement to irrigated corn. This product allows producers that plant with qualifying biotech
seed corn to receive discounts on their crop insurance premiums. The BE was originally tested in the 2008 crop
year in four states and is being expanded to eleven states
for the 2009 crop year. The premium rate reduction was
determined to be actuarially sound based on data demonstrating that non-irrigated corn with specific bioengineered traits having a significantly lower risk of yield loss
in comparison to non-traited corn. During 2009 RMA intends to publish a final regulation, effective for the 2011
crop year, implementing the Combo policy. The Combo
policy combines 5 existing policies into a single plan of insurance that would streamline the insurance process for
RMA, the approved insurance providers, and producers.
It would offer producers a choice of revenue protection
(against a loss of revenue caused by low prices, low yields

or a combination of both) or yield protection (for production losses only), all within the same policy. RMA also
continues to pursue a number of avenues to increase program participation among underserved States and commodities by working on declining yield issues and looking
at discount programs for good producers who pose less
risk.
Insurance against Security-Related Risks
Terrorism Risk Insurance
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIP), authorized under P.L. 107-297, helped stabilize the insurance
industry during a time of significant transition following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Initially,
TRIP was a three-year Federal program that provided
a system of shared public and private compensation for
insured commercial property and casualty losses arising
from certified acts of foreign terrorism. In 2005, Congress
passed a two-year extension (P.L.109-144), that narrowed
the Governments role by increasing the private sectors
share of losses, reducing lines of insurance covered by the
program, and adding an event trigger amount for Federal
payments.
In December 2007, Congress passed a seven-year extension (P.L.110-318) that broadened the program to include losses from domestic as well as foreign acts of terrorism. For all seven extension years, it maintains an
insurer deductible of 20 percent of the prior years direct
earned premiums, an insurer co-payment of 15 percent of
insured losses above the deductible, and a $100 million
event trigger amount for Federal payments. It changed
mandatory recoupment provisions, requiring Treasury to
collect 133 percent of the Federal payments made under
the program, and accelerated time horizons for recoupment of any Federal payments made before September
30, 2017.
The Budget baseline includes the estimated Federal
cost of providing terrorism risk insurance, reflecting the
2007 extension of the TRIP. Using market driven data,
the Budget projects annual outlays and recoupment for
TRIP. These estimates represent the weighted average
of TRIP payments over a full range of scenarios, most of
which include no terrorist attacks (and therefore no TRIP
payments), and some of which include terrorist attacks of
varying magnitudes. On this basis, the Budget projects
net spending of $2.160 billion over the 2010-2014 period
and $3.069 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
The Administration proposes to lessen Federal intervention in this insurance market and reduce the subsidy
to private insurers (i.e., increase the private sectors share
of losses). Beginning in 2011, when the economy is expected to have stabilized, and then again in 2013, the proposal
would increase the insurer deductible and co-payment,
and the event trigger amount for Federal payments. The
proposal would also remove coverage for domestic terrorism. Prior to the 2007 reauthorization, coverage of
domestic terrorism was widely available even in the ab-
59
sence of Government support. The proposal would sunset

TRIP in 2014 consistent with current law. By reducing
an insurance market subsidy, the proposal would encourage the private sector to mitigate terrorism risk through
other means, such as developing alternative reinsurance options prior to the 2014 program termination date
and by building safer buildings. Beginning in 2010, the
Budget proposal amends TRIP to allow insurers additional time to remit policyholder surcharges to Treasury and
to require commercial property and casualty insurance
policyholders to collectively pay back only 100 percent
rather than 133 percent of the Federal payments made
under the program. In so doing, the proposal would allow Treasury to assess a surcharge (recoup Federal payments) only after the economy begins to recover following
a terrorist attack.
The Budget projects savings from this proposal of $263
million over the 2010-2014 period and $644 million over
the 2010-2019 period.
Airline War Risk Insurance
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, private insurers cancelled third-party liability war risk coverage for
airlines and dramatically increased the cost of other war
risk insurance. In addition to a number of short term responses, the Congress also passed the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). Among other provisions, this
Act required the Secretary to provide additional war risk
insurance coverage for hull losses and passenger liability
to air carriers insured for third-party war risk liability
as of June 19, 2002. The Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-12) further extended
the requirement to provide insurance coverage through
September 30, 2009. Acting on behalf of the Secretary,
the FAA has made available insurance coverage for (i)
hull losses at agreed value; (ii) death, injury, or property
loss liability to passengers or crew, the limit being the

same as that of the air carriers commercial coverage before September 11, 2001; and (iii) third party liability, the
limit generally being twice that of such coverage. The
Secretary is also authorized to limit an air carriers third
party liability to $100 million, when the Secretary certifies that the loss is from an act of terrorism.
This program provides airlines with financial protection from war risk occurrences, and thus allows airlines
to meet the basic requirement for adequate hull loss and
liability coverage found in most aircraft mortgage covenants, leases, and government regulation. Without such
coverage, many airlines might be grounded. Currently,
aviation war risk insurance coverage is generally available from private insurers, but premiums are significantly higher in the private market. Also, private insurance
coverage for occurrences involving weapons of mass destruction is more limited.
Currently 62 air carriers are insured by Department of
Transportation. Coverage for individual carriers ranges
from $80 million to $4 billion per carrier, with the median insurance coverage at approximately $1.8 billion per
occurrence. Premiums collected by the Government for
these policies are deposited into the Aviation Insurance
Revolving Fund. In 2008, the Fund earned approximately
$166 million in premiums for insurance provided by DOT.
At the end of 2008, the balance in the Aviation Insurance
Revolving Fund available for payment of future claims
was $1,146 million. Although no claims have been paid
by the Fund since 2001, the balance in the Fund would be
inadequate to meet either the coverage limits of the largest policies in force ($4 billion) or to meet a series of large
claims in succession. The Federal Government would pay
any claims by the airlines that exceed the balance in the
Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund.
IV. FINANCIAL CRISIS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Technological advances and the removal of regulatory barriers over the last few decades have transformed
the financial markets. By facilitating the gathering and
processing of information and lowering transaction costs,
technological advances have spurred competition and
enabled markets to reach previously underserved populations. However, the crisis of the past 18 months has
exposed critical gaps and weaknesses in the Nations financial system.
Though the origins of the financial crisis are complex,
there is general agreement that suboptimal mortgage-underwriting standards, complex mortgage securitization,
poor disclosure, poor risk assessment, antiquated regulation, and the combination of low interest rates and an
abundance of liquidity have all contributed to the current
financial crisis.
Attractive interest rates combined with less than adequate underwriting standards in the late 1990s and early
2000s led many Americans to take on larger mortgages
than their incomes could absorb. Financial institutions

had underwritten a meaningful portion of these mortgages through a combination of lax standards and subprime
or Alt-A products. These mortgages were then pooled
into securities, sliced into tranches, and then sold and
re-sold into the marketplace with little understanding or
disclosure of the underlying risks. Credit ratings of these
securities were proven to be overly optimistic or at worst,
unfounded. In 2007, the housing bubble burst, and in a
declining home price environment, many of these assets
were proven to have much less value than anticipated,
which drove significant losses on investor and bank balance sheets. Both banks and investors, in their need to reduce the risk of further losses, began selling these assets
with significant price reductions. At the same time, the
economy was left exposed by financial regulations that
were out of date and regulators that were not equipped to
properly oversee the financial institutions and the marketplace as a whole.
60
As the marketplace, financial institutions, and regulators came to terms with the systemic risk underlying the
financial system, investors began to lose confidence, the
credit markets froze, and companies were unable to identify and secure sources of financing, which intensified the
severity of liquidity problems.
Government Response
The U.S. Government has taken unprecedented action
to stem the negative effects of the financial crisis, assuming both the risk and return associated with being the
lender and investor of last resort. The Department of
the Treasury, the Federal Reserve (The Fed), the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National
Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have acted independently and in concert to scale up existing programs
and make them more effective, and to launch new programs that are designed to:
expand access to credit;
strengthen financial institutions; and
restore confidence in the financial market and stabilize the housing sector.
Below is a summary of key government programs followed by an analysis of the budgetary effects of Treasurys
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as required by
Section 203 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008.
Federal Reserve Programs
The Federal Reserve has responded to the crisis by extending its existing credit programs, creating new credit
programs, directly purchasing assets for its System Open
Market Account (SOMA) portfolio, and providing direct
financial support to systemically significant financial institutions. Beginning in early August of 2007, the Federal
Reserve began pumping liquidity into the system to offset the precipitous decline in interbank lending. However,
interbank liquidity concerns continued to persist, which
led to the creation of the Term Auction Facility (TAF)
in December 2007. This facility allowed banks to access
Federal Reserve funds through an auction process. As
of April 1, 2009, banks have borrowed $60 billion. Soon
thereafter, the Federal Reserve provided numerous swap
agreements with foreign central banks, allowing the
Federal Reserve to address liquidity problems related to
a shortage of U.S. dollars around the world.
Throughout 2008, the Fed continued to create new programs designed to improve funding market conditions.
The Term Securities Lending Facility (TSLF), introduced
in March 2008, allowed institutions to pledge an array of
collateral (all investment grade debt and securities) in return for risk-free Treasury collateral. Second, in the wake
of the Bear Stearns failure in 2008, the Fed opened the
discount window for broker-dealers, giving these institutions a critical source of short-term liquidity; in the past,
only depository institutions had access to the discount
window. The Fed also created the Asset-Backed Securities
Money Market Mutual Fund Loan Facility, the Money

Market Investor Funding Facility, and the Commercial
Paper Funding Facility. Each of these programs increases
sources of liquidity for different participants in the money
markets, which has had the effect of stabilizing broader
financial markets. The Fed has committed up to $540 billion through these three facilities and extended credit
equal to $244 billion as of April 1, 2009.
Addressing the frozen consumer and business credit
markets, the Fed announced on November 25, 2008 that
in conjunction with the Treasury Department it would
lend up to $200 billion to holders of newly issued triple A asset-backed securities through the Term Asset
Backed Security Loan Facility (TALF). Qualifying assets
include student loans, auto loans, credit cards, and Small
Business Administration guaranteed loans. As part of the
program, the Treasury provides protection to the Fed by
covering the first $20 billion in losses. As of April 1, 2009,
subscriptions of qualified securities total $4.7 billion. The
Fed and Treasury subsequently announced that this program may be extended to up to $1 trillion and include a
broader array of eligible assets.
To prevent system-wide failures posed by specific institutions, the Fed has taken several important actions. First,
the Fed agreed in March 2008 to purchase $29 billion of
illiquid assets from the Bear Stearns Company, which allowed JP Morgan Chase & Co. to acquire remaining Bear
Stearns assets and liabilities. The Fed established a limited liability corporation (Maiden Lane) to hold the assets, which were valued at $26 billion as of April 1, 2009.
In another action designed to prevent systemic failure,
the Fed provided up to approximately $60 billion in loans
to the American International Group (AIG) at a rate of
300 basis points above LIBOR, collateralized by the assets of AIG. The Fed received warrants allowing it to buy
77.9 percent of AIG shares, which the Fed transferred to
an independent trust for the benefit of the US Treasury.
The Fed also provided $50 billion in additional loans to finance both a portfolio of collateralized default swaps, and
a portfolio of residential mortgage backed securities. The
Fed has also provided financing to other financial institutions (e.g., Citigroup) as a backstop on a pool of mortgagebacked securities and other financial instruments held by
the institutions (see section titled Troubled Asset Relief
Program for more information). By taking each of these
steps, the Fed has sought to prevent a system wide failure
that may have occurred as a result of the complex and
interconnected relationships these institutions have with
the broader financial industry.
To support mortgage lending and housing markets, the
Fed began purchasing up to $200 billion of Government
Sponsored Entity (GSE) debt and up to $1.25 trillion of
GSE mortgage-backed securities (MBS) beginning in
December 2008. As of April 1, 2009 the Fed has purchased
$51 billion in GSE debt and $236 billion in GSE MBS.
Purchasing GSE debt and MBS is intended to provide liquidity to the mortgage industry and facilitate the issuance of new mortgage loans to homebuyers at affordable
interest rates. More recently, the Fed has begun purchasing up to $300 billion in longer-term Treasury securities
to improve interest rate conditions in mortgage and other

private credit markets.
To help manage its growing balance sheet, the Fed has
pursued several different options. First, pursuant to the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110343), the Federal Reserve can pay interest on the required
and excess reserve balances depository institutions hold
at the Fed and in their vaults. Paying interest on these reserves increases a depository institutions (banks) incentives to keep the funds in the Federal Reserve System. As
of April 1, 2009, banks had $270 billion in reserve deposits at the Fed. Treasury has also helped the Fed manage
its balance sheet through the Supplementary Financing
Program (SFP). Through this program, the Treasury sells
Government securities to the public to deposit the proceeds at the Federal Reserve. Down from its peak level of
$559 billion in November 2008, Treasurys SFP deposits
at the Fed were $200 billion as of April 1, 2009.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Programs
On October 14, 2008, using its existing authority,
the FDIC created the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee
Program (TLGP), aimed at restoring confidence in banks
and preventing large scale deposit flight. For the first
time ever, the FDIC guaranteed bank and bank holding
company debt. Under the guarantee, if there is default
on the debt, the FDIC will make required principal and
interest payments to unsecured senior debt holders. The
FDIC charges additional premiums for any banks that
voluntarily opt into this program. The program has been
designed to promote liquidity by allowing banks to rollover new debt. The guarantee was originally limited to
unsecured debt issued on or before June 30, 2009, expiring
June 30, 2012. As of March 31, 2009, the program guaranteed nearly $300 billion of debt. On March 17, 2009, the
FDIC extended the eligible period to issue debt through
October 31, 2009, and levied a surcharge on debt issued
between April 1, 2009 and October 31, 2009, which will be
transferred to Deposit Insurance Fund. The Budget projects that the program will guarantee approximately $600
billion in bank loans over the life of the program.
As another component of the TLGP, the FDIC covers
without limit any losses that uninsured depositors incur
within non-interest bearing deposits. This program was
intended to promote funding stability and would have the
effect of protecting small business payrolls held at banks.
FDIC charges additional premiums for any banks that
voluntarily opt into this program. This guarantee was designed to protect small business payrolls held at small
and medium sized banks. This new guarantee expires
December 31, 2009.
The FDIC has also collaborated with the Treasury
Department and the Federal Reserve to provide assistance to systemically significant failing institutions such
as Citigroup and Bank of America. For its part, the FDIC
has guaranteed up to $10 billion of a $301 billion portfolio of residential and commercial MBS at Citigroup. The
FDIC has also announced that it would guarantee up to
$2.5 billion on a $108 billion portfolio of derivatives and
61
cash instruments at Bank of America.
In addition to the liquidity programs, the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 temporarily increased the deposit and share insurance level from
$100,000 per account to $250,000 through December
31, 2009. This increase applies to insured accounts
of both the FDIC and the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA). A more detailed analysis
of these programs is provided in the section titled,
Deposit Insurance and below in the subsection,
Troubled Asset Relief Program.
National Credit Union Administration Programs
On October 16, 2008, the NCUA announced a Temporary
Corporate Credit Union Liquidity Guarantee Program.
Under this program, the NCUA Share Insurance Fund
will guarantee certain unsecured debt of participating
corporate credit unions issued from October 16, 2008
through June 30, 2009. Similar to the FDIC, for the first
time ever, if a corporate credit union fails, NCUA will cover any losses of unsecured debt holders. On December 9,
2008, the NCUA also announced two new programs: the
Credit Union Homeowners Affordability Relief Program
(HARP) and the System Investment Program (SIP). Both
programs are designed to increase liquidity at corporate
credit unions, which currently act as a bankers bank for
regular credit unions that do not have access to NCUAs
credit advances.
Under HARP, NCUAs Central Liquidity Facility (CLF)
will make two-year secured advances of credit up to $2
billion invested through a special corporate credit union
note. Credit unions that reduce mortgage rates within
program guidelines qualify for a bonus payment from the
corporate credit union, which shares mortgage loan modification costs. The NCUA will guarantee the special corporate credit union debt, including the bonus payment. To
date, advances of $164 million have been made.
Under SIP, NCUAs CLF will extend 1-year credit advances to credit unions, who will in turn invest those
funds in corporate credit unions, providing a low cost
source of liquidity for corporate credit unions. To date, actual advances have been close to $5 billion. The Budget
projects advances of $12 billion for 2009.
The NCUA has also announced two actions to further
stabilize corporate credit unions. On January 28, 2009,
the NCUA deposited a note of $1 billion at U.S. Central
Federal Credit Union, a corporate credit union headquartered in Kansas. The Budget projects the full loss of this
note. On March 19, 2009, NCUA announced that it was
placing two corporate credit unions, U.S. Central and
Western Corporate, into conservatorship. As a result of
this action the NCUAs increased its overall loss reserve
level related to expected losses for corporate guarantees
to $6 billion.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Programs
During the financial crisis, the SEC and CFTC have
continued identifying, investigating, and prosecut-
62
ing fraud in securities, futures, and options markets.
Enforcement cases have targeted illegal activity ranging
from the manipulation of markets to multi-billion dollar Ponzi schemes. Starting in 2007 through February
2009, and on an ongoing basis, the SEC has issued rules
to increase the transparency of the credit rating methodologies, strengthen the disclosures of ratings performance, prohibit ratings agencies from engaging in
certain practices that create conflicts of interest, and enhance the recordkeeping and reporting obligations that
assist the SEC in performing its regulatory and oversight functions. Under the rules credit rating agencies
are also required to differentiate the ratings they issue
on structured products (such as mortgage-backed securities) from those they issue on bonds, in order to increase
investors understanding of the different risks of the two
securities. The SEC has several other pending proposals to further promote accountability, transparency, and
competition in the rating industry. On a temporary basis,
in July 2008, the SEC restricted naked short selling in
the stocks of 19 financial companies, and in September
2008, halted short-selling altogether in the stocks of approximately 1,000 financial companies, with the goal of
mitigating exceptionally volatile trading that posed a
threat to fair and orderly markets. The SEC also took
steps to strengthen prohibitions on manipulative naked short selling (the illegal practice of selling shares
that the seller does not own or has not arranged to borrow and intentionally fails to deliver in time for settlement) including issuing new rules, and is looking into
other measures surrounding short sales that will promote market stability and restore investor confidence.
Last, the SEC has worked with the Financial Accounting
Standards Board to issue industry guidance on implementing fair value accounting standards.
The CFTC has implemented new regulations to oversee exempt commercial markets for the first time, specifically for contracts that serve a significant price discovery function (SPDCs). The CFTC Reauthorization Act of
2008 authorized the CFTC to adopt position limits and
accountability level provisions for SPDCs traded on exempt commercial markets. The bill also established core
principles governing exempt commercial markets with
SPDCs, particularly with respect to position limits and
accountability level provisions. The goal of the CFTCs
new rules is to provide consistent transparency and accountability between markets that serve significant price
discovery functions. The regulations will cover contracts
that have grown in volume and activity and now have a
significant effect on futures markets that are subject to
CFTC oversight. These rules are consistent with other
initiatives that the CFTC protect consumers and ensure
the integrity of the core risk management and price discovery functions of the energy and agricultural futures
markets. These initiatives have expanded international
surveillance information for crude oil trading, reporting
and classifications of index traders and swap dealers, and
risk management choices for farmers and agri-businesses.
These initiatives are in addition to the CFTCs publiclydisclosed nationwide crude oil and cotton market enforce-
ment investigations and its creation of a new Energy and

Environmental Markets Advisory Committee.
In December 2008, the CFTC accepted the Chicago
Mercantile Exchanges certification of plans to provide
clearing services for certain credit default swap contracts
through its clearinghouse, which is registered with the
CFTC as a derivatives clearing organization. The advent
of clearing solutions for the credit default swap market
will enhance transparency, reduce counterparty credit
risk, and improve the quantity and quality of information
provided to federal regulators regarding these over-thecounter derivative instruments.
Housing Market Programs
To preserve the safety and soundness of the housing market and particularly the Government Sponsored
Enterprises (GSE), the Federal Housing Finance
Authority (FHFA) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
into conservatorship on September 6, 2008. On the same
day, the U.S. Treasury launched three new programs to
provide temporary financial support to the GSEs and to
stabilize the housing market under the broad authority
provided in Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-289). First, Treasury announced Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreements to ensure that GSEs maintain positive net position (i.e. assets are greater than or equal to
liabilities). As of April 1, 2009, Treasury has announced a
funding commitment of up to $200 billion to each of the
GSEs under these agreements. The 2010 Budget projects Treasurys purchases under this program will total
$171 billion. Second, Treasury established a line of credit
for the GSEs to ensure they have adequate funding on
a short-term, as-needed basis. As of April 1, 2009, this
line of credit has not been used. Last, Treasury initiated
purchases of GSE guaranteed mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in the open market (separate from the Feds
MBS purchase program above), with the goal of increasing liquidity in the mortgage market. The Budget projects
Treasury will purchase $314 billion of GSE MBS. A more
detailed analysis of these programs is provided in the section titled, Government Sponsored Enterprises in the
Housing Market.
In addition, significant assistance has been provided
to the mortgage market through the Federal Housing
Administration (see discussion above), and through the
Department of the Treasury, as described below.
Treasury Programs
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-343) authorized Treasury to purchase or guarantee troubled assets and other financial instruments,
with a total outstanding not to exceed $700 billion at
any one time. Treasury implemented the Troubled Asset
Relief Program (TARP) under this authority to provide
capital to and restore confidence in the strength of U.S.
financial institutions, restart markets critical to financing
American households and businesses, and address housing market problems and the foreclosure crisis. TARP authority expires December 31, 2009, although the Treasury
Secretary can certify to Congress that an extension is
necessary, in which case authority expires no later than

October 2010. TARP agreements in place upon the authoritys expiration will continue until they are dissolved.
A more detailed analysis of specific TARP programs is
provided below.
In addition, in 2008 the President approved Treasurys
request to use the Exchange Stabilization Fund to guarantee money market mutual funds. Treasurys Temporary
Guarantee Program for Money Market Funds guarantees
that individual investors will receive the stable share
price for each share held in a participating money market
fund (typically $1 per share) in the event that the fund
breaks the buck, i.e. liquidates investor holdings at less
than $1 per share. As of April 1, 2009, there have been no
claims on this guarantee program. Although not a claim
under the program, in early 2009, due to unique and extraordinary circumstances, Treasury purchased $3.6 billion in assets (GSE debt) to assist with the liquidation of
a money market mutual fund.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program and Financial
Stability Plan
i. Capital Purchase Program
Treasury created the Capital Purchase Program (CPP)
in October 2008 to stabilize the financial system by providing capital to viable financial institutions of all sizes
throughout the Nation. With a strengthened capital
base, financial institutions have an increased capacity
to lend to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support
the U.S. economy. Under the Capital Purchase Program
(CPP), Treasury purchases senior preferred stock in U.S.
financial institutions that meet established criteria and
are recommended by their regulator. As of April 1, 2009,
Treasury has purchased $198.8 billion in preferred stock
from 532 institutions. The Budget projects Treasury will
make $218 billion in purchases through 2009.
On February 27, 2009 Treasury announced its intent to
convert $25 billion in Citigroup preferred stock purchased
through the CPP into common stock in Citigroup equivalent to a 36 percent stake. The conversion is intended to
increase the tangible common equity at Citigroup and
will be completed later this year.
ii. Systemically Significant Failing Institutions
Program
The goal of the Systemically Significant Failing
Institutions Program (SSFI) is to provide stability to financial institutions whose financial difficulties could
cause disruption to financial markets, in order to limit
the impact on the economy as a whole, and to protect
American jobs, savings and retirement. Treasury provides capital on a case-by-case basis to systemically significant financial institutions that are at substantial risk
of failure. To date, the Treasury has purchased $40 billion in preferred shares from the American International
Group (AIG). It has also created an equity capital facility,
which will allow AIG to draw up to $29.8 billion as needed
in exchange for preferred stock.
63
iii. Targeted Investment Program
Treasury created the Targeted Investment Program
(TIP) to stabilize the financial system by making investments in institutions that are critical to the functioning
of the financial system. This program focuses on the complex relationships and reliance of institutions within the
financial system. Investments made through the TIP seek
to avoid significant market disruptions resulting from
the deterioration of one financial institution that could
threaten other financial institutions and impair broader
financial markets, and thereby pose a threat to the overall economy.
As of April 1, 2009, Treasury has purchased $20 billion
in preferred stock from Citigroup, and $20 billion in preferred stock from Bank of America. Both preferred stock
agreements pay a dividend of 8 percent per annum.
iv. Asset Guarantee Program
Under the Asset Guarantee Program (AGP), Treasury
guarantees the value of certain assets held by the qualifying financial institution. The set of insured assets is
selected by the Treasury and its agents in consultation
with the financial institution receiving the guarantee.
In accordance with EESAs section 102(a), assets to be
guaranteed must have been originated before March 14,
2008. Treasury determines the eligibility of participants
and the allocation of resources on a case-by-case basis.
The program is meant for systemically significant institutions, and could be used in coordination with other
programs. Treasury may, on a case-by-case basis, use this
program in coordination with a broader guarantee involving other agencies of the United States Government.
As of April 1, 2009, Treasury has announced two guarantees under the AGP: Citigroup and Bank of America.
Treasury has committed up to $5 billion towards any
potential losses incurred on a $301 billion portfolio of
loans, mortgage-backed securities, and other assets held
by Citigroup. Treasury absorbs 90 percent of losses after Citigroup absorbs the first $39.5 billion in losses.
(Citigroup continues to share 10 percent of losses after
the $39.5 billion deductible.) The FDIC absorbs the next
$10 billion in losses (again, via a 90/10 loss share with
Citigroup), and the Fed has agreed to finance the remaining portfolio on a non-recourse basis. Treasury receives
$4.034 billion in preferred stock with an 8 percent dividend from Citigroup as a fee, and the FDIC receives $3
billion of identical preferred stock. Treasury also receives
warrants to purchase 66,531,728 shares of Citigroup common stock at a strike price of $10.61. The Fed receives an
interest rate of the Overnight Indexed Swap (OIS) rate
plus 300 basis points. The guarantee was signed and executed January 16th, 2009.
Treasury also may guarantee up to $7.5 billion on a
$118 billion portfolio of derivatives, collateralized debt
obligations, mortgage-backed securities, and commercial
and corporate loans owned by Bank of America. Treasury
and the FDIC would absorb losses after Bank of America
absorbs the first $10 billion in losses. Treasury would receive $3 billion in preferred stock with an 8 percent dividend from Bank of America as a fee, as well as warrants
64
to purchase common shares. The guarantee has not been
signed or executed as of April 1, 2009.
v. Automotive Industry Financing Program
The goal of the Automotive Industry Financing
Program (AIFP) is to prevent a significant disruption
of the domestic automotive industry. The Treasury provides both loans and equity to participating domestic automotive manufacturers, finance companies, and suppliers. Through April 1, 2009, Treasury had financed a total
of $24.8 billion under the AIFP. Specifically, Treasury
has purchased $5 billion in GMAC Equity, lent $0.9 billion to GM for rights to GMAC, $13.4 billion to General
Motors (GM), $4 billion to Chrysler, and $1.5 billion to
Chryslers finance subsidiary. Treasury had also committed another $5 billion to domestic automotive suppliers. Under the terms of the assistance, both GM and
Chrysler are required to submit restructuring plans to
the U.S. Government. On March 30, 2009, the President
indicated that working capital loans would be provided
to both GM and Chrysler as they worked under a 60-day
and a 30-day deadline, respectively, toward long-term viability plans. At the same time, the President announced
the Warrantee Commitment program, which covers all
warranties on new vehicles purchased from automotive
manufacturers during the period in which those manufacturers are restructuring.
vi. Home Affordable Modification Program
In early March 2009, Treasury committed up to $50 billion to the Home Affordable Modification Program (HMP).
The HMP, which is part of the larger Making Home
Affordable program, is intended to bring relief to up to
3 million to 4 million at-risk homeowners struggling to
make their mortgage payments, while preventing neighborhoods and communities from suffering the negative
spillover effects of foreclosures.
This program, implemented in collaboration with
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will reduce the payment
on mortgages to an affordable level for qualifying borrowers, as well as provide incentive payments for lenders and
servicers to complete sustainably affordable modifications. The program encourages meaningful modifications
by providing success payments to both the borrower and
the servicer. Because loan modifications are more likely
to succeed if they are made before a borrower misses a
payment, the program also includes an incentive payment
of $1,500 to mortgage holders and $500 to servicers for
modifications made while borrowers are still current on
their payments. The HMP will be complemented by a second lien program, which will improve loan performance
and help prevent foreclosures by lowering total debt burden and providing homeowners with additional equity in
their homes
vii. Consumer and Business Lending Initiative
The Consumer and Business Lending Initiative (CBLI)
is an effort to jumpstart the credit markets that support
lending to families and small businesses. The CBLI broadens and expands the resources of the Term Asset-Backed
Securities Loan Facility (TALF), a joint initiative with

the Federal Reserve that provides financing to private
investors to help unfreeze markets for various types of
credit, including auto, student, small business, and credit
card loans. Recently, Treasury and the Federal Reserve
expanded TALF to include newly or recently issued AAArated ABS backed by four additional types of consumer
and business loansmortgage servicing advances, loans
or leases relating to business equipment, leases of vehicle
fleets, and floor plan loans. Immediately, Treasury will
use $20 billion to provide credit protection for $200 billion of lending from the Federal Reserve, with a significant further expansion of resources provided under the
Financial Stability Plan.
viii. A Program to Unlock Lending for Small
Businesses
In March, Treasury announced a program to unlock
credit for small businesses as part of the Consumer and
Business Lending Initiative. In recent years, securitization has supported over 40 percent of lending guaranteed
by the Small Business Administration. As a result of the
severe dislocations in the credit markets that began in
October 2008, however, both lenders that originate loans
under SBA programs and the pool assemblers that package such loans for securitization have experienced significant difficulty in selling those loans or securities in the
secondary market. This, in turn, has significantly reduced
the ability of lenders and pool assemblers to make new
small business loans. As a result, while the SBA guaranteed about $18 billion in 2008 (excluding secondary market guarantees), new lending was trending below $10 billion earlier this year.
As part of this program, Treasury will make up to $15
billion available for direct purchases to unlock the secondary market for the government-guaranteed portion of SBA
7(a) loans as well as first-lien mortgages made through
the 504 program. These purchases, combined with higher
loan guarantees and reduced fees implemented under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, will
help provide lenders with the confidence that they need
to extend credit, knowing that if they make an SBA loan,
they will be able to sell it and access the liquidity necessary to do further lending.
ix. Public Private Investment Program
Treasury introduced the Public Private Investment
Program to address the vicious market cycle affecting
troubled legacy assets clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions. Using $75 billion to $100 billion in
capital from EESA and capital from private investors
as well as funding enabled by the Federal Reserve and
FDICPPIP will generate up to $500 billion in purchasing power to buy legacy securities and legacy loans, with
the potential to expand to $1 trillion over time.
PPIP ensures that private sector participants invest
alongside the taxpayer, with the private sector investors
standing to lose their entire investment in a downside
scenario and the taxpayer sharing in profitable returns.
To reduce the likelihood that the government will overpay
for these assets, private sector investors competing with

one another will establish the price of the loans and securities purchased under the program.
x. Capital Assistance Program
Treasury launched the Capital Assistance Program
(CAP) as the next phase of its effort to ensure that institutions have enough capital to lend, even under a more
severe recession. The CAP was announced in conjunction
with the commencement of a supervisory capital assessment process, commonly referred to as the stress test.
At the time of this writing, bank supervisors are conducting reviews of major banks to determine whether these
institutions would require an additional capital buffer in
a severe economic scenario. Many banks will not need
additional capital, but in cases where an additional buffer
is needed, Treasury intends to make government capital
available as a bridge to private capital through CAP.
TARP Program Costs
This section provides the special analysis required by
Section 203 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008 (EESA), including estimates of the cost to taxpayers and the current value and budgetary effects of TARP
transactions as reflected in the Budget2, consistent with
the requirements of Section 123 of the EESA. It also includes analysis of the budgetary effects had all transactions been reflected on a cash basis. While Section 203
requires explanation of the effects due to reestimates and
prior year impacts, because the law was enacted in fiscal year 2009, there are no prior-year budgetary impacts
to report in the 2010 Budget. Reestimates on the TARP
portfolio will be calculated and incorporated into the 2011
Budget. The information below reflects the estimates of
actual and anticipated use of TARP authority as of April
1, 2009.
Current Value of Assets
Under TARP, the Secretary of the Treasury has purchased equity capital under a number of programs, including the Capital Purchase Program, the Systemically
Significant Failing Institutions Program, the Targeted
Investment Program, and the Automotive Industry
Financing Program. The Secretary has also made direct loans through the Automotive Industry Financing
Program, and further direct loans and asset-backed security purchases are anticipated under the Term AssetBacked Securities Loan Facility in partnership with
the Federal Reserve, and the Consumer and Business
Lending Initiative. Purchases of asset-backed securities,
like securities backed by Small Business Administration
7(a) loans, are considered direct loans, because the
Government is purchasing or participating in a loan made
by another lender. The equity purchases and direct loans
under these programs result in the Government acquiring assets, because the transactions result in obligations
2 The analysis does not assume the effects of a recoupment proposal under Section 134 of
the EESA.
65
on the part of financial institutions or borrowers to repay
principal and interest on the loans.
In addition, the Secretary has guaranteed assets under the Asset Guarantee program. Loan guarantee
transactions may represent an asset or a liability to the
Government based on whether the expected value of
loan guarantee fees and other cash inflows exceed claim
payouts and other cash outflows. Where default claims
exceed anticipated inflows to the Government on a net
present value basis, the guarantee results in a positive
subsidy cost. Likewise, if expected premiums are greater than the estimated claim payouts on a present value
basis, the loan guarantee has value to the Government.
Section 102 of the EESA requires that premiums for any
TARP guarantee transactions be set at a minimum to
cover default claims and protect the taxpayer. Below is
a table summarizing the current and anticipated activity
under TARP, and the budgetary costs through 2019.3
Equity purchases, direct loans, and loan guarantees
are accounted for on a credit basis per the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), and Section 123
of EESA. The budgetary cost of these transactions is reflected as the net present value of estimated cash flows
to and from the Government, excluding administrative
costs.4 Consistent with Section 123 of the EESA, the net
present value is calculated using the discount rate under
FCRA, adjusted for market risk.
Because equity purchases, direct loans, and loan guarantee transactions follow the FCRA budgetary accounting
structure, the value of future cash flows related to these
transactions can be measured by the balances in nonbudgetary credit financing accounts. A direct loan financing account, for example, receives the subsidy cost from
the program account (reflecting the net present value cost
of the loan), and borrows the difference between the face
value of the loan and the subsidy cost from Treasury to
disburse a loan to a borrower. Inflows from the public
such as payments of principal and interestare used to
repay borrowing, and reduce the balance in the financing
account as the value is realized. Therefore, the non-subsidy balance that the account owes to Treasury represents
the present value of future anticipated cash flows to and
from the public related to outstanding loans. The larger
the subsidy cost for a given loan disbursed or equity purchased, the lower the estimated value of the cash flows
from the public and asset value to the Government.5
Table 7-3 shows the projected balances of TARP financing accounts as of the end of 2009, and for the end of each
year in the 10-year budget window for the 2010 Budget.
Estimates reflect actual and anticipated transactions.
3 Anticipated activity under TARP is included under Direct loan transactions, though future activity could take the form of equity purchases, direct loans, asset guarantees, or other
financial instrument purchases.
4 Section 123 of the EESA provides the Administration the authority to record TARP equity
purchases pursuant to the FCRA, with adjustments to the discount rate for market risks. The
Home Affordable Modification Program involves the purchase of financial instruments which
have no provision for repayment or other return on investment, and therefore these purchases
are recorded on a cash basis. Administrative expenses are recorded for all of TARP under the
Office of Financial Stability on a cash basis, consistent with other Federal administrative costs.
5 As an extreme example, a loan program with 100 percent subsidy cost would require
budget authority for the full amount of the loan. The financing account would receive the entire
amount of a loan disbursement from the budgetary program account, and would not have to
borrow from Treasury. In this case, the loan would be estimated to have a zero asset value.
66
Table 72. budgeTary coSTS oF Troubled aSSeT relieF

Program acTionS (excluding debT Service)
TARP Action
Estimated Cost(+)/
Savings()
Face Value
Equity purchases
Direct loan transactions
Guarantees under the Troubled Asset Insurance Fund (non-add) ............................................................
Guaranteed portion
Home Affordable Modification Program 1
3330
3295
419.0
125
500
1416
1147
TARP administrative expenses 1
N/A
20
Special Inspector General for TARP 1
N/A
08
500
Total 2 ...........................................................................................................................................
725.0
1 Estimated costs through 2019, on a cash basis
2 Total reflects $700 billion limitation, plus additional $25 billion of redeemed equity expected to be available for reuse in the program
TARP financing accounts are estimated to have balances

of $366 billion as of the end of 2009, indicating thatas of
the end of 2009the Government is holding assets with
a net expected value of $366 billion in future cash flows.
The balance of the financing accounts is estimated to fall
in 2010 and to continue to fall in the subsequent years, as
the assets and loans acquired under the TARP program
are repaid or sold, and asset guarantees wind down.
The figures in Table 7-3 are consistent with the estimating assumptions in the 2010 Budget. They do not reflect any future changes in estimates for the cash flows of
these assets subsequent to the point of the Governments
obligation of the assistance provided for each transaction
under TARP.6 The subsidy costs of equity purchases, direct loan, and loan guarantee activity under TARP will
be reestimated on an annual basis. Actual cash flows and
changes in future activity could result in increases or decreases to the estimated value of TARP assets.
Estimate of the deficit, debt held by the public,
and gross Federal debt, based on the FCRA/EESA
methodology
The estimates of the deficit and debt in the 2010 Budget
reflect the impact of TARP as estimated under FCRA and
6 These transactions include modification costs, or the estimated cost of Government actions subsequent to origination that changed the expected value of future cash flows. Please see
the Treasury section of the Budget Appendix for additional information.
307.5
Section 123 of EESA. The deficit estimates include the

budgetary costs for each program under TARP, administrative expenses, certain indirect interest effects of credit
programs, and debt service costs on Treasury borrowing
to finance the program. The deficit due to TARP is $242
billion in 2009, counting both direct program costs and
other effects. On net, TARP is estimated to reduce the
deficit by $19 billion in 2010 and to have only small effects in later years.
The estimates of debt due to TARP include borrowing
to finance both the deficit impact of TARP activity and
the financing requirements of non-budgetary financing
accounts. These estimates are shown in Table 7-4. Debt
due to TARP is $608 billion as of the end of 2009 and declines in later years as TARP loans are repaid and TARP
equity purchases are sold or redeemed.
Debt held by the public net of financial assets means
the cumulative amount of money the Federal Government
has borrowed from the public and not repaid, minus the
current value of financial assets such as loan assets, private-sector securities, or equities held by the Government.
The specific effects of TARP on these estimates are displayed below in Table 7-4. Accounting for the financial
assets acquired through TARP, the impact of the program
on net debt is $242 billion as of the end of 2009. This
amount falls to $223 billion as of the end of 2010 but re-
Table 73. Troubled aSSeT relieF Program currenT value aS reFlecTed in THe budgeT 1
Estimate
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Financing account balances:

Troubled Asset Relief Program Equity Purchase Financing Account
Troubled Asset Relief Program Direct Loan Financing Account
Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
Total Financing account balances ........................................................
1664
1986
05
1568
1871
04
1465
1770
10
1328
1592
01
1184
1472
04
941
1353
03
795
1225
06
691
1086
02
600
932
02
509
763
05
451
578
07
365.5
344.3
324.5
291.9
265.2
229.7
202.6
177.8
153.1
126.8
102.1
1 Table does not include financial instrument purchases under the Home Affordable Modification Program
These assets have no future value, and outlays are reflected on a cash basis
67
mains roughly stable for the remainder of the 10-year

budget window.
Estimate of the current value on a cash basis
Section 203 of EESA requires the Budget to report an
estimate of the current value of all assets purchased, sold,
and guaranteed under EESA as calculated on a cash basis. However, the value of the assets does not depend on
whether the costs of acquiring or purchasing the assets
are recorded in the budget on a cash or a credit basis. As
noted above, the budget records the cost of equity purchases, direct loans, and guarantees as the net present
value cost to the Government, discounted at the rate required under the FCRA, and adjusted for market risks as
required under Section 123 of EESA. Therefore, the net
present value cost of the assets is reflected on the budgetary side, and the value of the assets is reflected in the
financing accounts for equity purchases, direct loans and
loan guarantees.7 If these purchases were instead presented in the budget on a cash basis, the value of assets
purchased would not be reflected in the budget. Rather,
the budget would reflect outlays for each disbursement
7 For the Home Affordable Modification Program, while Treasury does purchase financial
instruments, these financial instruments do not result in the acquisition of an asset with potential for future returns.
Table 74. Troubled aSSeT relieF Program eFFecTS on THe deFiciT and debT aS reFlecTed in THe budgeT 1
(Dollar amounts in billions)
Actual
2008
Estimate
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
deficit effect of TarP Program:

Programmatic and administrative expenses:
Programmatic expenses:
Equity purchases
Guarantees of troubled assets
Home Affordable Modification Program
Subtotal, programmatic expenses
Administrative expenses
Special Inspector General for TARP
Subtotal, programmatic & administrative expenses
1416
1147
08
41
2596
02
*
2598
81
81
03
*
84
99
99
03
101
103
103
03
106
80
80
03
82
60
60
03
62
26
26
01
27
10
10
01
11
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
Interest effects:
Interest transactions with credit financing accounts 2
Debt service 3
Subtotal, interest effects
Total deficit impact due to TARP
188
12
175
2423
330
55
275
191
312
165
147
46
291
211
79
26
265
212
53
29
242
200
42
21
211
187
23
04
186
177
09
02
164
166
02
04
141
156
15
16
117
146
29
30
1664
1986
95
115
103
101
137
178
144
120
243
119
146
128
104
140
91
153
91
169
58
186
05
3655
01
212
06
198
10
326
03
267
07
356
03
271
04
248
04
248
03
263
03
246
change in debt held by the public due to TarP ...............................
6078
403
244
300
238
335
267
245
243
247
216
debt held by the public due to TarP .................................................
6078
43%
5675
38%
5431
34%
5131
31%
4894
28%
4558
25%
4291
22%
4046
20%
3803
18%
3556
16%
3339
15%
6078
5675
5431
5131
4894
4558
4291
4046
3803
3556
3339
1328
1592
1184
1472
941
1353
795
1225
691
1086
600
932
509
763
451
578
01
2919
04
2652
03
2297
06
2026
02
1778
02
1531
05
1268
07
1021
2212
13%
2241
13%
2262
12%
2265
12%
2268
11%
2272
11%
2288
10%
2318
10%
other TarP transactions affecting borrowing from the publicnet

disbursements of credit financing accounts:
Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund Guaranteed Loan
Financing Account
Total, other transactions affecting borrowing from the public
As a percent of GDP
debt Held by the Public net of Financial assets:
Debt held by the public due to TARP
Less financial assets net of liabilities -- credit financing account

balances:
Troubled Asset Relief Program Equity Purchase Financing
1664 1568 1465
Account
1986 1871 1770
05
04
10
Financing Account
3655 3443 3245
Total, financial assets net of liabilities
Debt held by the public due to TARP net of TARP financial
2423 2232 2186
assets
17%
15%
14%
As a percent of GDP
1 Table reflects deficit effect of budgetary costs
2 Treasury interest transactions with credit financing accounts are based on the market-risk adjusted rates
3 Includes debt service effects of all TARP transactions affecting borrowing from the public
68
(whether a purchase, a loan disbursement, or a default

claim payment), and offsetting collections as cash is received from the public, with no obvious indication of
whether the outflows and inflows leave the government
in a better or worse financial position. Even with this
change in budgetary treatment, the assets held or guaranteed by the Government, and their value, would be the
same as under a credit basis.
Revised estimate of the deficit, debt held by the
public, and gross Federal debt based on the cashbasis valuation
Section 203 of EESA requires that this analysis report
estimates of the deficit and debt attributable to TARP
with TARP transactions calculated on a cash basis, for
comparison to those estimates reported above in which
TARP transactions are calculated consistent with FCRA
and Section 123 of EESA.
If TARP transactions were reported on a cash basis, the

deficit would include the full amount of government disbursements for activities such as equity purchases and direct loans, offset by cash inflows from dividend payments,
redemptions, and loan repayments occurring in each year.
For loan guarantees, the deficit would show no impact until there were fees, claim payouts, or other cash transactions associated with the guarantee.
Table 7-5 shows that if TARP transactions were reported on a cash basis, the increase in the deficit for
2009 due to TARP would be an estimated $608 billion, or $366 billion higher than reported in the 2010
Budget. The reason for the increase is that $366 billion
of outlays would be reported for transactions that are
now included in non-budgetary financing accounts for
TARP.
Estimates of debt held by the public would be identical if TARP transactions were reported on a cash basis.
This is because the cash flows from the Government, and
Table 75. Troubled aSSeT relieF Program eFFecTS on THe deFiciT and debT calculaTed on a caSH baSiS 1
Actual
2008
Estimate
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
deficit effect of TarP Program:

Programmatic and administrative expenses:
Programmatic expenses:
Equity purchases
Guarantees of troubled assets
Home Affordable Modification Program
Subtotal, programmatic expenses
Administrative expenses
3001
3024
03
41
6063
02
229
311
01
81
460
03
230
286
06
99
411
03
256
350
10
103
514
03
251
278
03
80
452
03
338
266
07
60
538
03
221
263
03
26
456
01
167
262
04
10
423
01
146
262
04
01
410
01
139
262
03
404
01
Special Inspector General for TARP

Subtotal, programmatic & administrative expenses
Debt service 2
Total deficit impact due to TARP
--
......
*
6065
12
6078
*
458
55
403
409
165
244
511
211
300
450
212
238
535
200
335
454
187
267
422
177
245
409
166
243
403
156
247
01
362
146
216
change in debt held by the public due to TarP ..................................
......
6078
403
244
300
238
335
267
245
243
247
216
debt held by the public due to TarP ....................................................
6078
43%
5675
38%
5431
34%
5131
31%
4894
28%
4558
25%
4291
22%
4046
20%
3803
18%
3556
16%
3339
15%
6078
5675
5431
5131
4894
4558
4291
4046
3803
3556
3339
509
763
451
578
05
1268
07
1021
2288
10%
2318
10%
As a percent of GDP
98
262
03
363
debt Held by the Public net of Financial assets:

Debt held by the public due to TARP
Less financial assets net of liabilities -- credit financing account

balances:
1664 1568 1465 1328 1184
941
795
691
600
1986 1871 1770 1592 1472 1353 1225 1086
932
05
04
10
01
04
03
06
02
02
Financing Account
3655 3443 3245 2919 2652 2297 2026 1778 1531
Total, financial assets net of liabilities
Debt held by the public due to TARP net of TARP financial
2423 2232 2186 2212 2241 2262 2265 2268 2272
assets
17%
15%
14%
13%
13%
12%
12%
11%
11%
As a percent of GDP
1 Table reflects deficit effect of budgetary costs, substituting estimates calculated on a cash basis for estimates calculated under FCRA and Sec 123 of EESA
2 Includes debt service on all TARP transactions affecting borrowing from the public
69
therefore the debt needed to finance them, would be the

same regardless of how TARP costs are reported in the
deficit. Likewise, estimates of debt net of financial assets
would be unchanged because the value of TARP assets
would be the same regardless of how the budget reported
the costs of acquiring them.
Portion of the deficit attributable to any action
taken by the Secretary, and the extent to which
the deficit impact is due to a reestimate
Table 7-4 above shows the portion of the deficit attributable to actions taken by the Treasury Secretary under
the authorities of TARP. The largest effects are for TARP
equity purchases and direct loans. The specific effects are
as follows:
Equity purchases under the Capital Purchase Program and other TARP authorities are estimated to
result in $142 billion in outlays in 2009. TARP equity purchases are not expected after 2009 and therefore no outlays are estimated in these years.
Direct loans under TARP, including loans to the auto
industry, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, purchases of asset-backed securities, and future actions, are estimated to result in $115 billion
in outlays in 2009. No direct loans are expected to
be disbursed after 2009 and therefore no outlays are
estimated in these years.
Loan guarantees under TARP are estimated to reduce outlays on net by $1 billion in 2009, because
the Asset Guarantee program is estimated to result
in greater receipts from fees than estimated default
claims on a net present value basis. No loan guarantee commitments are expected to be entered into
after 2009.
Outlays for the Home Affordable Modification Program are estimated at $4 billion in 2009. Outlays
for this program are estimated to rise in 2010 and
following years to a peak of $10 billion in 2012 and
then fall to zero by 2018.
Administrative expenses for the TARP program are
estimated at $0.3 billion in 2009, remaining at that
level through 2014.
Interest transactions with credit financing accounts
include interest paid to Treasury on borrowing by
the financing accounts, offset by interest paid by
Treasury on the financing accounts uninvested balances. Although the financing account transactions
are non-budgetary, Treasury payment and receipt
of interest are budgetary transactions and therefore affect net outlays and the deficit. For TARP financing accounts, interest transactions are based
on the market-risk adjusted rates used to discount
the cashflows. The net financing account interest
paid to Treasury is expected to be $19 billion in 2009
and to reach $33 billion in 2010, and then to decline
over time as the financing accounts repay borrowing
from Treasury through proceeds and repayments on
TARP equity purchases and direct loans.

The full impact of TARP on the deficit includes the
cost of Treasury borrowing from the publicdebt
servicefor the higher outlays listed above. Debt
service reaches $21 billion in 2012, and then falls to
$20 billion in 2014 and $15 billion in 2019.
The figures shown in Table 7-4 do not incorporate any reestimates of subsidy costs for TARP programs implemented
to date. The costs of credit programs are reestimated annually by updating cash flows for actual experience and new
assumptions, and adjusting for any change in estimates by
either recording additional subsidy costs (an upward reestimate) or by reducing subsidy costs (a downward reestimate).
Reestimates will be calculated over the coming months, and
incorporated into the 2011 Budget.
Comparison with Congressional Budget Office
Estimates
While CBOs March analysis of the Presidents
Budget provides its most recent estimate of the total
cost of the TARP program, its January report on the
cost of the TARP program provides more extensive
transaction-by-transaction detail and describes the
methods that CBO uses. To clarify the differences between the OMB and the CBO estimation approach, this
analysis uses the older estimate (and its backup data)
as a point of comparison.
The cost estimates in the Presidents Budget are
higher than estimates made by the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) in its January report because
they were made after a significant drop in the prices
of publicly-traded securities of banks participating in
the Treasury program in January 2009. Like the CBO
model, OMBs models derive estimated costs of the
TARP transactions from market prices, particularly
through the market adjustment to the discount rate
required by EESA.
Table 7-6 below shows OMBs estimates of the cost
of the transactions alongside CBOs. To facilitate the
comparison, the table presents OMBs estimates of
the cost of the transactions before some of the terms
of purchases were modified. Since those modifications
were made after CBOs report, CBOs estimates do not
reflect them. The comparison is also limited to only
those transactions that are included in the CBO report.
OMBs estimated 39 percent subsidy rate for those
transactions is substantially higher than the 26 percent rate estimated by CBO.
The difference is due almost wholly to the date of valuation. CBO valued the transactions using market data as
of December 31, 2008, while OMB used market data from
the end of January, 2009. When OMB values the transactions using market data as of the December 31 valuation
date that CBO used for its report, the result is an almost
identical total subsidy rate to CBO for the transactions,
and the subsidy rates for individual transactions are very
similar as well.
This comparison suggests that CBOs March estimates were higher than those in their January re-
70
Table 76. comPariSon oF ombS coST eSTimaTeS wiTH cboS For TranSacTionS included in
THe cbo January TarP rePorT
# of Institutions
Disbursement
Estimated
Subsidy CBO
(12/31/08)
Estimated
Subsidy OMB
(12/31/08)
Estimated
Subsidy OMB
(1/31/09)
equity Purchases:
Capital Purchase Program
American International Group
Citigroup
GMAC
214
1
1
1
178
40
20
5
32
21
5
3
32
23
4
3
54
28
9
3
Total Equity Purchases

Loans to Automobile Companies
217
1
243
4
61
3
62
3
94
3
Total
Subsidy Rate
218
247
64
26%
65
26%
97
39%
port and OMBs estimates in the Presidents Budget,

partly because they reflect market prices at the end
of February, and thus an even further decline in bank
stock prices. CBOs March analysis also might make
different assumptions about transactions that have yet
to be completed.
Future Government Actions
The Administration will continue to develop new programs to mitigate the effects of the financial crisis, while
it will also take steps to prevent future financial crises.
The Budget provides increased resources for financial
regulators to ensure that institutions are complying with
existing laws and regulations, and thereby prevent misconduct and fraud.
The Presidents comprehensive regulatory reform is
aimed at reforming and modernizing our financial regulatory system for the 21st century, providing stronger tools
to prevent and manage future crises, and rebuilding confidence in the basic integrity of our financial systemfor
sophisticated investors and working families alike. The
reform has four components:
Addressing Systemic Risk. This crisisand the cases
of firms like Lehman Brothers and AIGhas made clear
that certain large, interconnected firms and markets need
to be under a more consistent and more conservative reg-
ulatory regime. It is not enough to address the potential

insolvency of individual institutionsregulators must
also ensure the stability of the system itself.
Protecting Consumers and Investors. It is crucial
that when households make choices to invest their savings they benefit from clear rules of the road that prevent
manipulation and abuse. While outright fraud like that
perpetrated by Bernie Madoff is already illegal, these cases highlight the need to strengthen enforcement and improve transparency for all investors. Lax regulation also
left too many households exposed to deception and abuse
when taking out home mortgage loans.
Eliminating Gaps in Our Regulatory Structure.
The Nations regulatory structure must assign clear authority, resources, and accountability for each of its key
functions. Turf wars or concerns about the shape of organizational charts must not prevent the establishment of a
substantive system of regulation that meets the needs of
the American people.
Fostering International Coordination. To keep
pace with increasingly global markets, regulators must
ensure that international rules for financial regulation are
consistent with the high standards we will be implementing in the United States. Additionally, the Administration
will launch a new, three-pronged initiative to address prudential supervision, tax havens, and money laundering issues in weakly-regulated jurisdictions.
71
Chart 7-1. Face Value of Federal

Credit Outstanding
Dollars in trillions
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Loan Guarantees
0.8
0.6
Direct Loans
0.4
0.2
0.0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Table 77. eSTimaTed FuTure coST oF ouTSTanding Federal direcT loanS and loan guaranTeeS
Program
Outstanding
2007
Estimated
Future Costs of
2007 Outstanding 1
Outstanding
2008
Estimated
Future Costs of
2008 Outstanding 1
direct loans: 2
Federal Student Loans
Farm Service Agency (excl CCC), Rural Development, Rural Housing
Rural Utilities Service and Rural Telephone Bank
Housing and Urban Development
Export-Import Bank
Public Law 480
Agency for International Development
Commodity Credit Corporation
Disaster Assistance
GSE Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program
VA Mortgage
Other Direct Loan Programs
124
44
40
10
6
8
6
1
10
1
10
15
10
1
3
2
4
2
(1)
6
148
45
42
9
5
7
6
1
10
3
1
9
22
9
2
3
2
3
2
3
*
(1)
4
Total Direct Loans
260
44
286
49
guaranteed loans: 2
FHA-Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
VA Mortgage
Federal Student Loans
FHA-General and Special Risk Insurance Fund
Small Business 3
322
232
363
108
72
7
4
51
448
232
415
128
75
17
4
43
2
2
72
Table 77. eSTimaTed FuTure coST oF ouTSTanding Federal direcT loanS and loan guaranTeeScontinued
Program
Outstanding
2007
Estimated
Future Costs of
2007 Outstanding 1
Outstanding
2008
Estimated
Future Costs of
2008 Outstanding 1
Export-Import Bank
International Assistance
Farm Service Agency (excl CCC), Rural Development, Rural Housing
Commodity Credit Corporation
Maritime Administration
Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) 3
Other Guaranteed Loan Programs
39
22
32
3
3
1
2
*
2
40
22
37
4
2
1
2
1
*
2
Total Guaranteed Loans
1,202
69
1,407
74
Total Federal credit ................................................................................................................

1,462
113
1,693
123
1 Direct loan future costs are the financing account allowance for subsidy cost and the liquidating account allowance for estimated uncollectible principal and interest Loan guarantee
future costs are estimated liabilities for loan guarantees
2 Excludes loans and guarantees by deposit insurance agencies and programs not included under credit reform, such as CCC commodity price supports Defaulted guaranteed loans
which become loans receivable are accounted for as direct loans
3 Certain SBA data are excluded from the totals because they are secondary guarantees on SBAs own guaranteed loans GNMA data are excluded from the totals because they are
secondary guarantees on loans guaranteed by FHA, VA and RHS
73
Table 78. reeSTimaTeS oF crediT SubSidieS on loanS diSburSed beTween 1992-2008 1

(Budget authority and outlays, in millions of dollars)
Program
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
direcT loanS:
agriculture:
23
39
9
71
1
6
5
331
656
17
1
19
37
23
921
1
2
1
42
29
1
1
3
65
10
7
1
1
1
101
3
435
1
3
1
348
112
701
8
*
1
265
7
64
84
33
44
147
7
*
*
1
143
6
200
2
3
34
43
2
1
*
3
7
197
17
109
*
2
73
239
14
1
108
48
3
7
77
26
251
50
*
*
3
149
22
13
3
*
31
44
478
47
1
*
3
329
36
405
1
4
144
163
19
15
12
11
16
172
22
383
2,158
6
560
43
3,678
1,999
855
2,827
2,674
408
45
*
11
*
16
418
444
*
24
47
36
20
3
5
3
1
9
1
14
2
*
*
17
*
*
1
*
1
1
2
5
1
3
1
2
58
18
12
3
14
11
11
7
1
11
15
163
8
25
465
111
52
107
697
17
3
*
178
*
*
987
*
*
44
*
1
76
1
1
402
1
1
20
*
1
Foreign Military Financing
152
166
119
397
64
41
78
US Agency for International Development:

Micro and Small Enterprise Development
Agriculture Credit Insurance Fund

Farm Storage Facility Loans
Apple Loans
Emergency Boll Weevil Loans
Distance Learning, Telemedicine and Broadband Loans
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans
Rural Telephone Bank
Rural Housing Insurance Fund
Rural Economic Development Loans
Rural Development Loan Program
Rural Community Advancement Program 2
PL 480
PL 480 Title I Food for Progress Credits
commerce:
Fisheries Finance
defense:
Military Housing Improvement Fund
education:
Federal Direct Student Loan Program: 3
Volume reestimate
Other technical reestimate
Temporary Student Loan Purchase Authority: 3
Volume reestimate
College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Homeland Security:
Disaster Assistance
interior:
Bureau of Reclamation Loans
Bureau of Indian Affairs Direct Loans
Assistance to American Samoa
Transportation:
High Priority Corridor Loans
Alameda Corridor Loan
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
Treasury:
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
veterans affairs:
Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund
Native American Veteran Housing
Vocational Rehabilitation Loans
environmental Protection agency:
Abatement, Control and Compliance
international assistance Programs:
74
Table 78. reeSTimaTeS oF crediT SubSidieS on loanS diSburSed beTween 1992-2008 1continued
Program
Overseas Private Investment Corporation:
OPIC Direct Loans
Debt Reduction
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
36
4
*
21
47
3
104
7
54
72
3
31
15
193
246
398
1
282
2
14
1
266
25
589
196
16
61
4
258
4
109
6
134
4,592
980
177
1,501
157
804
117
92
640
346
305
380
111
732
257
24
227
11
120
8
10
96
109
41
31
205
2
1,410
152
63
40
56
17
36
1
13
32
91
33
1
230
50
15
22
*
205
66
29
162
*
366
44
64
20
232
*
16
36
225
*
19
10
*
47
38
*
24
2
*
3
50
*
*
*
*
1
3
*
*
75
1
1
13
*
*
1
*
*
53
1
5
20
13
140
60
667
42
3,484
277
2,483
3,278
1,348
6,837
3,399
*
5
37
1
33
*
18
*
20
1
*
2
15
743
3,789
79
2,413
217
1,308
403
1
1
1,100
77
*
1
19
5,947
352
3
4
10
1,979
507
1
*
2
2,842
238
*
4
4
636
1,254
5
3
1
3,923
362
7
1
2
9,331
6,086
14
15
30
71
30
15
187
1
27
16
*
4
*
76
11
*
51
*
23
113
199
292
109
95
38
492
229
770
163
184
1,515
462
842
525
182
71
Small business administration:

Business Loans
Disaster Loans
other independent agencies:
Export-Import Bank Direct Loans
loan guaranTeeS:
agriculture:
Agriculture Credit Insurance Fund
Agriculture Resource Conservation Demonstration
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Guarantees
Rural Community Advancement Program 2
Renewable Energy
commerce:
Fisheries Finance
Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loans
Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loans
defense:
Military Housing Improvement Fund
Defense Export Loan Guarantee
Arms Initiative Guaranteed Loan Program
education:
Federal Family Education Loan Program: 3
Volume reestimate
189 13,463
Health and Human Services:

Heath Center Loan Guarantees
Health Education Assistance Loans
Housing and urban development:
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
Title VI Indian Guarantees
Community Development Loan Guarantees
FHA-Mutual Mortgage Insurance
FHA-General and Special Risk
interior:
Bureau of Indian Affairs Guaranteed Loans
Transportation:
Maritime Guaranteed Loans (Title XI)
Minority Business Resource Center
Treasury:
Air Transportation Stabilization Program
veterans affairs:
Veterans Housing Benefit Fund Program
75
Table 78. reeSTimaTeS oF crediT SubSidieS on loanS diSburSed beTween 1992-2008 1continued
Program
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
international assistance Programs:

US Agency for International Development:
Development Credit Authority
Micro and Small Enterprise Development
Urban and Environmental Credit
Assistance to the New Independent States of the Former
Soviet Union
Loan Guarantees to Israel
Loan Guarantees to Egypt
14
15
1
2
48
3
2
2
2
3
11
11
*
22
34
76
111
188
7
34
14
16
12
46
12
77
60
212
21
149
268
26
279
545
235
528
226
304
1,750
1,034
390
268
140
931
191
1,520
417
2,042
1,133
655
1,164
579
174
23
5,642
4,518 3,357 6,427 1,854
142
3,468
6,008
* $500,000 or less
1 Excludes interest on reestimates Additional information on credit reform subsidy reestimates is contained in the Federal Credit Supplement
2 Includes Rural Water and Waste Disposal, Rural Community Facilities, and Rural Business and Industry programs
3 Volume reestimates in mandatory programs represent a change in volume of loans disbursed in the prior years
9,003
3,441
2,044
2,876
Overseas Private Investment Corporation:

OPIC Guaranteed Loans
Small business administration:
Business Loans
other independent agencies:
Export-Import Bank Guarantees
Total ................................................................................................
76
Table 79. direcT loan SubSidy raTeS, budgeT auTHoriTy, and loan levelS, 2008-2010
(Dollar amounts in millions)
2008 Actual
Agency and Program
Agriculture:
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account
Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
Account
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account
Rural Community Facilities Program Account
Farm Labor Program Account
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2009 Enacted
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2010 Proposed
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
Loan
levels
877
101
102
1
1,162
148
977
611
107
9
1,103
153
399
098
51
2
1,290
153
060
215
1042
555
4326
6511
1166
4289
2259
46
10
132
21
13
20
144
14
7
7,774
452
1,271
386
31
31
1,240
34
32
213
388
1462
572
4214
6035
795
3403
4185
2088
155
56
538
94
14
25
221
3
14
7
7,290
1,428
3,678
1,639
32
41
2,792
9
34
35
121
724
754
131
3614
2789
503
2135
2524
1305
89
485
77
4
8
2
63
14
8
4
7,290
6,692
1,022
295
22
6
1,246
66
34
33
588
38
719
67
891
67
2064
28
137
3131
54
171
814
38
471
1303
221
197
498
652
13
22,528
33,175
1631
363
823
1630
10
2
4,760
6,713
61
42
57,841
41,175
1135
367
1432
1370
1699
20
2
498
3,350
13,847
178
67
3,476
24,442
81,491
675
945
14,000
772
3,437
44,500
2174
2,196
10,100
1743
2,598
14,900
104
25
036
25
50
50
8982
83
92
8230
83
101
6022
5977
5805
1510
154
1,019
1044
000
186
1,781
600
1203
000
100
831
600
162
81
5,000
236
3333
3481
4191
5,876
250,000
114,686
139,556
249,000
750,000
329,500
333,000
373
2,238
60,000
3752
266
1448
3
1
130
6
281
1007
31
2
1,077
15
486
3278
54
4
1,110
11
Commerce:
Fisheries Finance Program Account
DefenseMilitary:
Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
Education:
College Housing and Academic Facilities Loans Program
Account
TEACH Grant Program Account
Federal Perkins Loan Program Account
Federal Family Education Loan Program Account 2
Federal Direct Student Loan Program Account
Energy:
Title 17 Innovative Technology Program
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
Account
Homeland Security:
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account
Housing and Urban Development:
FHA-Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account
Green Retrofit Program for Multifamily Housing, Recovery
Act
State:
Repatriation Loans Program Account
Transportation:
Federal-Aid Highways
Treasury:
Account
Financial Stabilization Reserve 3
Troubled Asset Relief Program Account 4
Troubled Asset Relief Program Equity Purchase Program 4
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Program Account
Veterans Affairs:
Housing Program Account
Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account
77
Table 79. direcT loan SubSidy raTeS, budgeT auTHoriTy, and loan levelS, 2008-2010continued
2008 Actual
Agency and Program
Subsidy
rate 1
General Operating Expenses
Subsidy
budget
authority
2009 Enacted
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2010 Proposed
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
Loan
levels
216
193
127
387
124
234
300
257
13
500
1627
1012
124
2
763
20
1492
034
158
6
1,061
1,717
1073
015
117
6
1,100
4,050
1006
56
611
17
270
3313
17
50
5072
863
1,701
International Assistance Programs:

Overseas Private Investment Corporation Program Account
Small Business Administration:
Disaster Loans Program Account
Business Loans Program Account
Export-Import Bank of the United States:
Export-Import Bank Loans Program Account
National Infrastructure Bank:
National Infrastructure Bank Program Account
Total ......................................................................................
n/a
502
75,577
n/a
491,449 1,810,183
n/a
12,081
257,873
N/A = Not applicable
1 Additional information on credit subsidy rates is contained in the Federal Credit Supplement
2 Includes Temporary Student Loan Purchase programs authorized by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act Consolidated loans are not eligible for purchase
3 Table includes $750 billion in potential activity associated with a $250 billion Financial Stability Reserve Funding has not been requested, but serves as a reserve should additional
amounts be necessary for financial stabilization efforts
4 As authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), table includes equity purchases under the Troubled Asset Relief Program Subsidy costs for equity purchases
and direct loan transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program are calculated using the discount rate required by the Federal Credit Reform Act adjusted for market risks, as
authorized by the EESA
78
Table 710. loan guaranTee SubSidy raTeS, budgeT auTHoriTy, and loan levelS, 2008-2010
2008 Actual
Agency and Program
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2009 Enacted
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2010 Proposed
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
Loan
levels
Agriculture:
202
46
2,252
261
67
2,587
185
53
2,869
305
082
368
135
433
969
87
9
96
60
2
2,854
18
245
7,111
1,391
16
091
082
308
131
435
969
3334
50
1
12
248
194
30
75
5,475
75
400
18,919
4,483
312
225
099
082
321
144
533
1364
3547
54
1
7
91
53
64
262
5,500
75
210
6,333
993
466
740
001
73,097
159
1,219
76,845
134
620
46,347
341
450
12
497
12
242
307
252
11
420
068
919
242
1212
1
2
41
13
252
1234
1
2
42
17
252
1118
1
2
42
18
225
025
158
4
435
603
160
171,875
38,072
226
017
208
7
525
145
307
315,000
6,980
000
028
254
912
184
275
330,000
7,287
2327
209
900
2272
1,250
5,500
653
84
773
11
146
713
11
155
203
186
1000
000
626
20
60
18
200
100
958
186
1000
000
20
18
200
100
018
752
419,000
036
129
36,231
060
277
46,339
012
55
47,233
600
14
244
000
317
19
900
590
000
427
16
900
364
068
1,248
084
11
1,400
075
13
1,850
000
18,115
117
392
21,710
226
072
1
303
71
30,145
Export-Import Bank Loans Program Account
068
98
14,343
204
359
17,534
127
205
16,092
Total .............................................................................
N/A
944
367,728
N/A
1,881
941,894
N/A
1,336
504,714
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program
Account
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
Rural Business Program Account
Renewable Energy Program Account
Biorefinery Assistance Program Account
Education:
Federal Family Education Loan Program Account
Health Resources and Services
Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program
Account
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund
Program Account
Native American Housing Block Grant
Community Development Loan Guarantees Program
Account
FHA-Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account
FHA-General and Special Risk Program Account
Home Ownership Preservation Equity Fund Program
Account
Interior:
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account
Transportation:
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Federal-Aid Highways
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account
Treasury:
Troubled Asset Relief Program Account 2
Veterans Affairs:
Housing Program Account
Loan Guarantees to Israel Program Account
Development Credit Authority Program Account
Overseas Private Investment Corporation Program
Account
Disaster Loans Program Account
Business Loans Program Account
Export-Import Bank of the United States:
79
Table 710. loan guaranTee SubSidy raTeS, budgeT auTHoriTy, and loan levelS, 2008-2010continued
2008 Actual
Agency and Program
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2009 Enacted
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
2010 Proposed
Loan
levels
Subsidy
rate 1
Subsidy
budget
authority
Loan
levels
addendum: Secondary guaranTeed loan

commiTmenT limiTaTionS
GNMA:
Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities Loan
Guarantee Program Account
SBA:
Secondary Market Guarantee Program
Total, secondary guaranteed loan commitments.....
021
463
220,605
021
632
300,900
024
733
305,500
4,138
12,000
12,000
N/A
463 224,743
N/A
632 312,900
N/A
733 317,500
N/A=Not applicable
1 Additional information on credit subsidy rates is contained in the Federal Credit Supplement
2 The subsidy costs for Troubled Asset Relief Program asset guarantees are calculated using the discount rate under the Federal Credit Reform Act adjusted for
market risks, as authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
80
Table 711. Summary oF Federal direcT loanS and loan guaranTeeS

Estimate1
Actual
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Direct Loans:
Obligations
391
437
454
420
563
578
425
756
1,8102
2579
Disbursements
371
396
397
387
506
466
417
411
1,7889
2007
New subsidy budget authority 2
03
07
04
21
47
14
37
4935
121
authority 3
18
05
29
26
38
31
34
08
Total subsidy budget authority
15
05
35
30
60
78
48
13
4935
121
Commitments 4
2564
3037
3459
3006
2485
2807
2702
3677
9419
5047
Lender disbursements 4
2129
2714
3313
2799
2216
2560
2512
3546
9263
4968
New subsidy budget authority 2
23
29
38
73
101
172
57
14
50
20
Reestimated subsidy budget authority 3
71
24
35
20
35
70
68
36
05
Total subsidy budget authority
48
05
03
93
136
242
11
22
45
20
Reestimated subsidy budget
Loan guarantees:

1 Table includes Troubled Asset Relief Program equity purchases under the authority of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, and $750 billion in potential activity associated with
the $250 billion Financial Stability Reserve Funding for the latter has not been requested, but serves as a reserve should additional amounts be necessary for financial stabilization
efforts
2 Troubled Asset Relief Program credit subsidy costs calculated using the discount rate required under the Federal Credit Reform Act adjusted for market risks, as authorized by the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
3 Includes interest on reestimate
4 To avoid double-counting, totals exclude GNMA secondary guarantees of loans that are guaranteed by FHA, VA, and RHS, and SBAs guarantee of 7(a) loans sold in the secondary
market
81
Table 712. direcT loan wriTe-oFFS and guaranTeed loan TerminaTionS For deFaulTS
As a percentage of outstanding loans 1
In millions of dollars
Agency and Program
2008
actual
2009
estimate
2010
estimate
2008
actual
2009
estimate
2010
estimate
direcT loan wriTe-oFFS

Agriculture:
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund
Rural Community Facility
Rural Business and Industry Program
Rural Development Loan Fund
63
13
14
5
55
72
1
72
67
1
76
100
056
2745
001
022
115
857
006
029
106
1034
007
029
DefenseMilitary:
Family Housing Improvement Fund
019
Education:
Student Financial Assistance
223
225
226

Revolving Fund (Liquidating Programs)
Guarantees of Mortgage-backed Securities
2857
1666
2500
Interior:
Revolving Fund for Loans
1000
Treasury:
Troubled Asset Relief Program Direct Loans
Troubled Assets Relief Program Equity Purchases
6,750
64,502
2,020
26,432
203
860
065
1084
Veterans Affairs:
Miscellaneous Veterans Housing Loans
Veterans Housing Benefit Program
32
4
96
1
64
369
8000
1355
10000
969

Debt Restructuring
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
29
14
15
15
1017
176
196
201

Disaster loans
Business loans
329
309
4
157
4
358
356
272
189
298
Other Independent Agencies:

Debt Reduction (Export-Import Bank)
Export-Import Bank
Spectrum Auction Program
Tennessee Valley Authority Fund
1
6
163
8
27
10
111
1
582
10
47
033
011
4323
1509
924
022
5285
212
6887
025
4747
Total, direct loan write-offs ....................................................................................................
741
71,986
29,488
032
2859
157
58
41
22
59
131
57
22
24
28
140
58
27
24
32
227
057
121
336
161
075
056
060
7924
075
064
056
040
8135
060
064
guaranTeed loan TerminaTionS For deFaulT

Agriculture:
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans
Rural Community Facility
Rural Business and Industry Program
82
Table 712. direcT loan wriTe-oFFS and guaranTeed loan TerminaTionS For deFaulTScontinued
Agency and Program
2008
actual
2009
estimate
2010
estimate
2008
actual
2009
estimate
2010
estimate
DefenseMilitary:
Family Housing Improvement Fund
142
145
Education:
Federal Family Education Loans
9,948
10,598
8,942
273
255
197

Health Education Assistance Loans
Health Center Loan Guarantees
12
1
16
1
15
1
106
158
163
144
162
133

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantees
Community Development Loan Guarantees
FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance
FHA General and Special Risk Insurance
Home Ownership Preservation Entity Fund
6,717
1,035
6
1
2
13,625
1,958
1
7
1
2
2
17,394
2,198
40
068
208
096
073
125
202
304
153
058
086
186
009
274
207
448
Interior:
Indian Guaranteed Loans
055
047
Transportation:
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI)
192
73
793
293
Treasury:
Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund Guaranteed Loans
1,096
027
Veterans Affairs:
1,136
1,744
1,841
048
075
068

Urban and Environmental Credit Program
Development Credit Authority
17
2
51
22
2
150
23
2
150
122
078
112
176
075
287
207
068
258

Business loans
2,268
2,663
1,620
317
354
200
Other Independent Agencies:

Export-Import Bank
203
202
202
052
050
045
Total, guaranteed loan terminations for default ....................................................................
21,705
31,463
33,982
133
158
122
Total, direct loan write-offs and guaranteed loan terminations ..........................................
22,446
103,449
63,470
120
462
136
Agriculture:
857
895
937
Education:
Federal Family Education Loans
1,444
1,652
1,606
480
481
470

FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance
FHA General and Special Risk Insurance
186
4
22
4
19
436
076
043
064
030
addendum: wriTe-oFFS oF deFaulTed guaranTeed

loanS THaT reSulT in loanS receivable
83
Table 712. direcT loan wriTe-oFFS and guaranTeed loan TerminaTionS For deFaulTScontinued
Agency and Program
2008
actual
2009
estimate
2010
estimate
2008
actual
2009
estimate
2010
estimate
Interior:
Indian Guaranteed Loans
2500
Veterans Affairs:
25
16
892
397
230

51
81
70
3805
3665
2916

Business loans
1,416
279
277
2315
511
496
Total, write-offs of loans receivable ......................................................................................
3,128
2,062
1,991
715
429
404
Average of loans outstanding for the year
84
Table 713. aPProPriaTionS acTS limiTaTionS on crediT loan levelS 1

Agency and Program
2008
Actual
2009
Actual
2010
Estimate
direcT loan obligaTionS

Agriculture:
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Direct Loan Financing Account
Rural Economic Development Direct Loan Financing Account
1,199
32
1,053
35
1,340
33
Commerce:
Fisheries Finance Direct Loan Financing Account
38
67
67
Education:
Historically Black College and University Capital Financing Direct Loan
Financing Account
61
178
Energy:
Title 17 Innovative Technology Direct Loan Financing Account
47,000
Homeland Security:
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Financing Account
25
25

FHA-General and Special Risk Direct Loan Financing Account
FHA-Mutual Mortgage Insurance Direct Loan Financing Account
50
50
50
50
20
50
State:
Repatriation Loans Financing Account
Transportation:
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program Line of
Credit Financing Account
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Direct Loan Financing
Account
200
200
600
Treasury:
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Direct Loan
Financing Account
10
16
Veterans Affairs:
Vocational Rehabilitation Direct Loan Financing Account
Total, limitations on direct loan obligations ......................................
1,382
48,561
2,516
Agriculture:
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Guaranteed Loan Financing
Account
2,277
2,481
2,869

Health Center Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
12
12

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Financing Account
Title VI Indian Federal Guarantees Financing Account
Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Financing Account
Community Development Loan Guarantees Financing Account
FHA-general and Special Risk Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
FHA-mutual Mortgage Insurance Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
367
17
41
200
45,000
185,000
420
17
42
265
45,000
315,000
919
18
42
275
15,000
400,000
loan guaranTee commiTmenTS
85
Table 713. aPProPriaTionS acTS limiTaTionS on crediT loan levelS 1continued

Agency and Program
2008
Actual
2009
Actual
2010
Estimate
Interior:
Indian Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
84
146
155
Transportation:
Minority Business Resource Center Guaranteed Loan Financing
Account
RRIF Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
18
18
18
100

Development Credit Authority Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
700
700
700

Business Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
Disaster Loans Guaranteed Loan Financing Account
18,115
29,210
30,145
71
Total, limitations on loan guarantee commitments ..........................
251,827
393,311
450,324
200,000
300,000
500,000
4,138
12,000
12,000
204,138
312,000
512,000
addendum: Secondary guaranTeed

loan commiTmenT limiTaTionS
Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed Securities Financing Account
Secondary Market Guarantees
Total, limitations on secondary guaranteed loan commitments .....
1 Data represents loan level limitations enacted or proposed to be enacted in appropriation acts For information
on actual and estimated loan levels supportable by new subsidy budget authority requested, see Direct Loan
Subsidy Rates, Budget Authority, and Loan Levels 2008-2010 and Loan Guarantee Subsidy Rates, Budget
Authority, and Loan Levels 2008-2010
86
Table 714. Face value oF governmenT-SPonSored lending 1

Outstanding
2007
2008
government Sponsored enterprises:

Fannie Mae 2
Freddie Mac 3
Federal Home Loan Banks
Farm Credit System
2,658
1,969
824
132
2,955
2,135
1,012
156
Total ..............................................................................................................................
5,583
6,258
1 New originations including issuance of securities and investment portfolio purchases, net of purchases of federally
guaranteed loans
2 Data for Fannie Mae is net of purchases of federally guaranteed loans and Freddie Mac issuances, as reported by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
3 Data for Freddie Mac is net of purchases of federally guaranteed loans and Fannie Mae issuances, as reported by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
87
Table 715. lending and borrowing by governmenT-SPonSored enTerPriSeS (gSes) 1

Enterprise
2008
lending
Federal National Mortgage Association:
Portfolio programs:
Net change
Outstandings
38,588
767,166
Mortgage-backed securities:
Net change
Outstandings
274,788
2,278,170
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation:

Portfolio programs:
Net change
Outstandings
23,712
736,876
Net change
Outstandings
150,611
1,459,462
Farm Credit System:

Agricultural credit bank:
Net change
Outstandings
6,771
43,110
Farm credit banks:

Net change
Outstandings
15,987
103,382
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation:

Net change
Outstandings
1,448
9,810
Federal Home Loan Banks:

Net change
Outstandings
182,661
1,099,624
Less federally guaranteed loans purchased by:

Net change
Outstandings
14,283
56,805

Net change
Outstandings
(382)
5,117
Federal Home Loan Banks:

Net change
Outstandings
(852)
8,690
Other:
Net change
Outstandings
N/A
N/A
Less purchase of mortgage securities issued by other GSEs: 2

Net change
Outstandings
58,248
185,096
borrowing
Portfolio programs:
Net change
Outstandings
69,545
831,310
88
Table 715. lending and borrowing by governmenTSPonSored enTerPriSeS (gSes)1continued

Enterprise
Net change
Outstandings
2008
274,788
2,278,170

Portfolio programs:
Net change
Outstandings
57,039
783,950
Net change
Outstandings
150,691
1,459,462
Farm Credit System:

Agricultural credit bank:
Net change
Outstandings
10,963
53,412
Farm credit banks:

Net change
Outstandings
16,692
122,653
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation:

Net change
Outstandings
737
4,307
Federal Home Loan Banks: 3

Net change
Outstandings
186,757
1,323,417
deducTionS 4
Less borrowing from other GSEs:
Net change
Outstandings
N/A
N/A
Less purchase of Federal debt securities:

Net change
Outstandings
N/A
N/A
Less borrowing to purchase federally guaranteed loans and securities:

13,049
Net change
70,612
Outstandings
Less borrowing to purchase mortgage securities issued by other GSEs: 2
58,248
Net change
185,096
Outstandings
N/A = Not available
1 Data does not reflect an official view of future GSE activity, nor is the data reviewed by the President The data for all years include
programs of mortgage-backed securities In cases where a GSE owns securities issued by the same GSE, including mortgage-backed
securities, the borrowing and lending data for that GSE are adjusted to remove double-counting Data for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and the Federal Home Loan Banks as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
2 Includes Fannie Mae securities purchased by Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, and Freddie Mac securities
purchased by Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Banks
3 The net change in borrowings is derived from the difference in borrowings between 2008 and the Federal Home Loan Banks audited
financial statements of 2007
4 Where totals and subtotals have not been calculated, a portion of the total is unavailable
8. AID TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

State and local governments have a vital role in providing government services. They play the major part in providing domestic public services, such as public education,
law enforcement, roads, water supply, and sewage treatment. The Federal Government contributes to that role
by promoting a healthy economy. It also provides grants,
loans, and tax subsidies to State and local governments.
Federal grants help State and local governments finance programs covering most areas of domestic public
spending, including income support, infrastructure, education, and social services. Federal grant outlays were
$461.3 billion in 2008 and are estimated to be $567.8 billion in 2009 and $652.2 billion in 2010. These amounts include grant funding provided by P.L. 1115, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).
The $106.5 billion increase in grant outlays estimated for
2009, and the further $84.4 billion increase in 2010, stem
largely from funding provided in the Recovery Act, along
with increases in Medicaid spending apart from the increased funding provided in the Recovery Act.
Grant outlays to State and local governments for payments for individuals, such as Medicaid payments, are estimated to be 62 percent of total grants in 2010; grant outlays for physical capital investment, 15 percent; and grant
outlays for all other purposes, largely education, training,
and social services, 23 percent. Roughly one-fifth of federal grant outlays in 2010 are due to the Recovery Act.
Grant outlays include the value of subsidies for loans

to State and local governments, such as Rural Business
and Community Facilities loans.
Some tax expenditures also constitute Federal aid to
State and local governments. Tax expenditures stem from
special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals, or tax rates in the Federal tax laws. The deductibility of State and local personal income and property taxes
from gross income for Federal income tax purposes and
the exclusion of interest on State and local bonds from
Federal taxation comprise the two largest categories of
tax expenditures benefiting State and local governments.
In 2010, these provisions are estimated to be worth $80.3
billion. Chapter 19 of this volume, Tax Expenditures,
provides a detailed discussion of the measurement and
definition of tax expenditures and a complete list of the
estimated costs of specific tax expenditures. Tax expenditures that especially aid State and local governments are
displayed separately at the end of Tables 191 and 192.
An Appendix to this chapter includes State-by-State
estimates of major grant programs, including major programs funded by the Recovery Act.
Table 81 shows the distribution of grants by agency.
Grant outlays by the Department of Health and Human
Services are estimated to be $367.5 billion in 2010, 56 percent of total grant outlays. Most of the remaining grant
spending is in the Departments of Agriculture, Education,
Table 81. Federal granT ouTlayS by agency

Agency
Department of Labor
Other agencies
Total
2008
Actual
284
04
408
*
2672
89
384
49
38
72
512
19
07
39
38
4613
2009
Estimate
320
13
478
08
3379
110
396
50
59
102
627
39
08
39
50
5678
2010
Proposed
353
10
803
82
3675
78
453
50
48
117
735
08
09
54
46
6522
89
90
Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation,

which account for another 36 percent of grant outlays.
The Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Education
are estimated to have the largest annual percentage increases in grant outlays between 2008 and 2010. The
estimated increases in the Departments of Energy and

Education are largely due to the Recovery Act, while the
estimated increase in the Department of Commerce is
largely due to the Digital Television Transition and Public
Safety Fund.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FEDERAL AID PROGRAM

Several proposals in the 2010 Budget affect Federal aid
to State and local governments and the important relationships between the levels of government. Highlights
of these proposals are presented below.
Natural Resources and Environment
Grant outlays for natural resources and environment
programs are estimated to be $7.8 billion in 2010.
The Budget includes $3.9 billion for the Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). With this
historic increase, the program will fund over 1,000 Clean
Water and nearly 700 Drinking Water projects annually in
the Nations States, Tribes, and territories, based on average
project costs. The SRF programs provide grants to States to
capitalize their own revolving funds, which finance wastewater and drinking water treatment systems. The SRFs use
the Federal capitalization, State matches (20 percent), State
leveraging, interest, and loan repayments to make low-interest loans to communities. Because repayments and interest are recycled back into the program, SRFs generate funding for loans (revolve) even without Federal capitalization.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that
for every Federal dollar invested, at least two dollars in financing is provided to municipalities. In conjunction with
the dramatic increase in Federal funding for local water infrastructure needs, the Administration will pursue program
reforms that will put resources for these ongoing needs on a
firmer foundation. EPA will work with State and local partners to develop a sustainability policy including management and pricing for future infrastructure funded through
SRFs to encourage conservation and to provide adequate
long-term funding for future capital needs.
The Budget also proposes a new $475 million interagency initiative to address regional issues that affect the
Great Lakes, such as invasive species, non-point source
pollution, and contaminated sediment. A significant portion of this initiative will be carried out through State
and local governments. This initiative will use outcomeoriented performance goals and measures to target the
most significant problems and track progress in addressing them. EPA and its Federal partners will coordinate
State, tribal, local, and industry actions to protect, maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes.
Climate change poses a threat to Americas fish and
wildlife, as natural habitats change more rapidly than
plants and animals can adjust. Scientific analyses are
needed to understand the breadth of these changes.
Federal land management agencies, States, and Tribes

all need to update land management and species recovery
plans to reflect the impacts of climate change on wildlife.
They also need to monitor how wildlife is adapting and accelerate projects, such as protecting migration corridors,
to help wildlife adjust. The Budget includes $40 million
in funding for States for wildlife adaptation efforts.
The Administration seeks to create a broad coalition
to address great conservation challenges, recognizing the
important part played by Americas hunters and anglers.
To help preserve the national traditions of hunting and
fishing shared by families across the country, the Budget
provides $30 million for grants and technical assistance
to help States establish creative programs and strategies
to encourage young people and minority populations to
responsibly hunt and fish.
The Budget also includes an increase of approximately
$25 million to States and territories for actions to conserve threatened and endangered species living on nonFederal lands. Activities include habitat acquisition,
conservation planning, habitat restoration, population
surveys, research, and education.
The Budget proposes funding in 2010 for a western
water conservation initiative to support the development,
management and restoration of water and related natural
resources in 17 Western States and tribal lands while balancing competing uses of water. The goal of this effort is
to improve the availability of water in local communities
by encouraging voluntary water banks, wastewater treatment, and other market-based conservation measures.
The Bureau of Reclamations water reuse and recycling
(Title XVI) program is included in this proposal.
Transportation
Federal grants support State and local highway, transit, and airport construction programs. For 2010, grant
outlays are estimated to be $73.4 billion for transportation programs.
To provide Americans a 21st Century transportation
system, the Budget proposes a five-year $5 billion highspeed rail State grant program. Building on the $8 billion
down-payment in the Recovery Act, this proposal marks
a new Federal commitment to give the traveling public
a practical and environmentally sustainable alternative
to flying or driving. Directed by the States, this investment will lead to the creation of several high-speed rail
corridors across the country linking regional population
centers.
91

Grant outlays for community and regional development programs are estimated to be $20.3 billion in 2010.
The Budget provides $4.5 billion for 2010 for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to fulfill the
Presidents promise to fully fund the program. This funding will ensure that communities continue to invest in and
expand economic opportunities for low-income families. In
addition to the significant funding increase, the Budget will
modernize the program through statutory reforms. Through
a more effective formula, appropriate incentives and accountability measures, and a new Sustainable Communities
Initiative, the Administration will revamp the CDBG program to better target funds to distressed communities and
promote sustainable and economically viable communities.
The Budget proposes to eliminate funding for the Section
108 Community Development Loan Guarantees Program
(Section 108) and Brownfields Economic Development
Initiative (BEDI). The Administration has proposed a
fee schedule to offset the subsidy cost of the loan guarantees for the Section 108 program. BEDI is proposed to
be eliminated because it is duplicative of larger programs
that achieve similar results, such as the Community
Development Block Grant. By eliminating separate funding for these programs, the Department of Housing and
Urban Development will streamline its resources and focus its efforts on programs that are more successful.
Making the Federal Government a better partner to
States and localities on key homeland security initiatives
is an Administration priority. For 2010, the Administration
has targeted additional funds to those programs which incorporate a sound risk-based methodology for grant awards
while reducing or eliminating ineffectiveness or heavily
earmarked programs. Additional funding of $53 million is
provided to improve coordination among all levels of government and create more effective emergency response
plans. The request also includes $42 million in risk-based
exercise assistance to help State, local, and tribal partners
offset costs of critical homeland security activities and
establishes a new $40 million program to expand medical surge capacity by providing necessary assistance with
planning, coordination, and commodity storage. Funding of
$260 million within the existing Homeland Security Grant
program can be used to fortify the Nations intelligence system by improving information sharing and analysis and
by potentially adding thousands more State and local-level
intelligence analysts.
The Recovery Act provided $7.2 billion for extending
broadband service to help build the communications infrastructure needed for long-term economic competitiveness. Competitive grants and loans will be issued
by the Department of Commerce and the Department
of Agriculture, with at least one grant being awarded in
each State. States and territories may be consulted in
identifying unserved or underserved areas, and the allocation of grant funds within each State.
Education, Training, Employment, and Social

Services
Grant outlays for education, training, employment, and
social service programs are estimated to be $103.3 billion
in 2010.
Students must attain high levels of achievement to be
successful in the global economy. Assessments must accurately measure students knowledge and skills, including
critical thinking skills. Building on the Recovery Act, the
Administration will help States increase their standards
so they better prepare students for success in college and
a career. The Budget provides $411 million to improve
the quality of assessments, including assessments for
students with disabilities and English language learners.
Such reforms will lay the groundwork for reauthorizing
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The Budget builds on the investments funded under
the Recovery Act designed to significantly upgrade the
skills and effectiveness of the education workforce. The
Administration will invest in efforts to strengthen and increase transparency of results for teacher and principal
preparation programs, including programs in schools of
education, alternative certification programs, and teacher
and principal residency programs. The Budget supports
an additional $420 million, for a total of $517 million, for
investments in State and local efforts, developed in consultation with teachers and other stakeholders, to implement systems that reward strong teacher performance
and help less effective teachers improve or, if they do not
improve, exit the classroom. The additional resources also
include funding to develop better systems and strategies
for recruiting, evaluating, and supporting teachers and
other educators to provide a better supply and distribution of a well-prepared and effective education workforce.
The Budget also builds on the Recovery Acts focus on
strategic investments in scaling up educational practices
that show results and cultivating promising new practices. The Budget commits $1.5 billion, in addition to the
$3 billion provided in the Recovery Act, to turn around
high-need, low-performing schools with strong supports,
not just sanctions. The Administrations new strategy
will support State efforts to diagnose and address the
root causes of schools low performance. In addition, the
Budget increases funding by $52 million, for a total of
$268 million, for the Charter School program to support
the expansion of successful charter school models, while
increasing State oversight to monitor and shut down lowperforming charter schools.
The Recovery Act made a down payment on the
Presidents comprehensive Zero to Five plan, providing
$1.1 billion to double the number of children served by
Early Head Start over two years, an additional $1 billion
to expand and improve Head Start, and an additional $2
billion in funding for the Child Care and Development
Block Grant. The Budget sustains critical support for
young children and their families by building on these
investments and providing funding to States to support
evidence-based home visitation programs that help give
92
children a healthy start in life, as explained in the next
section.
Decades of rigorous research demonstrates that highquality early childhood education programs help children
succeed in school and throughout their lives. Building on
strong investments in the Recovery Act, the Budget also
includes $800 million for new initiatives aimed at ensuring that early childhood programs yield strong results for
children. These funds will be used to encourage State and
local investment in early childhood education; support coordination among local, State, and Federal partners to
provide a seamless delivery of services; and provide better
information to parents about program options and quality.
The Administration supports the principle of tribal
self-determination and will work to improve tribal education. The Budget increases funding for tribal colleges and
scholarships by $10 million and provides a one-time $50
million increase earlier in the fiscal year to give the colleges greater financial security to plan for the upcoming
academic year.
Health
Grant outlays for health related programs are estimated to be $310.7 billion in 2010.
Medicaid is a means-tested health care entitlement
program financed jointly by States and the Federal
Government. On average, the Federal Government pays
57 percent of Medicaid costs. The Recovery Act protects
health care coverage for millions of Americans during
the recession by temporarily increasing Federal Medicaid
funding to help States facing budget shortfalls maintain
their current programs. In addition, the Childrens Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, signed by
the President on February 4, 2009, extends the program
through 2013 and provides an additional $44 billion in allotments, for a total of $69 billion in funding over the fiveyear period 20092013. This funding will provide access to
approximately four million more children by 2013.
The Budget includes funding of $124 million in 2010
and $2.2 billion over five years for a new home visitation
program that provides funds to States for evidence-based
home visitation programs for low-income families. The
program will provide States with funding primarily to
support home visitation models that have been rigorously
evaluated and shown to have positive effects on critical
outcomes for children and families. A smaller portion of
funds will be available for other promising models that
will be rigorously tested to assess their impact. Research
including several randomized control studies showed
one particular model of nurse home visitation resulted
in Medicaid savings from reductions in preterm births,
emergency room use, and subsequent births. Expanding
proven effective home visitation programs is estimated to
save Medicaid $664 million over ten years, including $189
million in 2019 after full implementation.
Teen pregnancy rates have increased for two consecutive years, after falling for the previous decade. The
Administration is committed to addressing this issue and
has provided $178 million for teen pregnancy prevention

and related efforts. A new $110 million initiative provides
funds for grants to community-based and faith-based organizations to implement evidence-based and promising
models to prevent teen pregnancy. Funds will also support rigorous scientific evaluation to identify effective
program models.
Income Security
Grant outlays for income security programs are estimated to be $113.8 billion in 2010.
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program continues to be the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable
housing. Annually, it receives an appropriation of almost
$2 billion that is distributed by formula to communities
that often partner with local nonprofit groups to fund a
wide range of activities that build, buy, and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership or provide direct rental assistance to low-income people.
The Budget requests $1 billion in funding for the Housing
Trust Fund, also known as the Affordable Housing Trust
Fund. The Housing Trust Fund was originally authorized
in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, with
a dedicated funding stream from assessments on Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. However, given the financial difficulties of the two government-sponsored enterprises, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency has indefinitely suspended these assessments. The Budgets $1 billion request restores funding for the Housing Trust Fund to finance the
development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable
housing for very low income residents.
A robust Housing Choice Voucher program will provide
$17.8 billion to help more than two million extremely lowto low-income families with rental assistance to live in decent housing in neighborhoods of their choice. To further
improve the program, the Administration will propose
legislative reforms to help fully utilize available funding, alleviate the administrative burdens on the Public
Housing Authorities, and establish a funding mechanism
that is transparent and predictable in order to serve more
needy families.
The Budget strongly supports the Public Housing program, which provides housing for approximately 1.1 million low-income households. The Budget includes $4.6
billion to fund 100 percent of Public Housing Authorities
estimated eligibility for operating subsidies under the
Public Housing Operating Fund formula. This funding
will allow Public Housing Authorities to effectively operate and manage their public housing portfolios. Funding
of $2.2 billion is also provided for the Public Housing
Capital Fund to support capital and management improvement activities.
Funding of $8.1 billion for the Project-Based Rental
Assistance program will preserve approximately 1.3 million affordable rental units through increased funding for
contracts with owners of multifamily properties. This critical investment will assist low- and very low-income house-
93
holds in obtaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing in private accommodations.

The Budget also supports a strong reauthorization
package for the Child Nutrition program and the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) that will ensure that low-income children
receive the nutrition assistance they need and help fulfill
the Presidents pledge to end childhood hunger by 2015.
The Budget provides an increase of $1 billion annually for
program reforms aimed at improving program access, enhancing the nutritional quality of school meals, expanding nutrition research and evaluation, and improving
program oversight. Funding is also provided to support
over 9.8 million participants in the WIC program, which
is critical to the health of pregnant women, new mothers,
and their infants.
Despite the efforts of States to reduce improper benefit
payments, over $3.9 billion in Unemployment Insurance (UI)
benefits were erroneously paid in 2008. The Administration
will tackle this problem by increasing funding for program
integrity and proposing legislative changes that would reduce UI improper payments by $3.9 billion and employer
tax evasion by almost $300 million over 10 years. The pro-
posal would, among other things, collect benefit overpayments through garnishment of Federal income tax refunds
and boost States resources to recover benefit overpayments
and UI tax evasion by allowing them to use a portion of recovered funds on fraud and error reduction.
Grant outlays for administration of justice programs
are estimated to be $5.3 billion in 2010.
The Budget provides $298 million to begin hiring
50,000 additional police officers by expanding Community
Oriented Policing Services Hiring Grants. Supporting the
hiring of police nationwide will help States and communities minimize the growth of crime during the economic
downturn.
The Administration also supports the principle of tribal self-determination and will work to improve tribal law
enforcement. The Budget provides an increase of approximately $30 million that will strengthen tribal courts,
detention centers, and police programs to help Native
Americans protect their communities.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
In recent decades, Federal aid to State and local governments has become a major factor in the financing of
certain government functions. The rudiments of the present system date back to the Civil War. The Morrill Act,
passed in 1862, established the land grant colleges and
instituted certain federally required standards for States
that received the grants, as is characteristic of the present grant programs. Federal aid was later initiated for
agriculture, highways, vocational education and rehabilitation, forestry, and public health. In the depression
years, Federal aid was extended to meet income security
and other social welfare needs. However, Federal grants
did not become a significant factor in Federal Government
expenditures until after World War II.
Table 82 displays trends in Federal grants to State
and local governments since 1960. Section A shows
Federal grants by function. Functions with a substantial amount of grants are shown separately. Grants for
the national defense, energy, social security, and veterans
benefits and services functions are combined in the other
functions line in the table.
Federal grants for transportation increased to $3.0 billion, or 43 percent of all Federal grants, in 1960 after initiation of aid to States to build the Interstate Highway
System in the late 1950s.
By 1970 there had been significant increases in the relative amounts for education, training, employment, social
services, and health (largely Medicaid).
In the early and mid-1970s, major new grants were
created for natural resources and environment (construction of sewage treatment plants), community and regional
development (community development block grants), and

general government (general revenue sharing).
Since the late 1970s changes in the relative amounts
among functions reflect steady growth of grants for
health (Medicaid) and income security. The functions with
the largest amount of grants are health; income security;
education, training, employment, and social services; and
transportation, with combined estimated grant outlays of
$601.2 billion, or more than 92 percent of total grant outlays in 2008.
The increase in total outlays for grants overall since
1990 has been driven by increases in grants for health,
which have increased nearly five-fold, from $43.9 billion
in 1990 to $218.0 billion in 2008. The income security;
education, training, employment, and social services; and
transportation functions also increased substantially, but
at a slower rate than for health.
Section B of the table distributes grants between mandatory and discretionary spending.
Funding for grant programs classified as mandatory
is determined in authorizing legislation. Funding levels
for mandatory programs can only be changed by changing
eligibility criteria or benefit formulas established in law
and are usually not limited by the annual appropriations
process. Outlays for mandatory grant programs were
$274.5 billion in 2008. The three largest mandatory grant
programs are Medicaid, with outlays of $201.4 billion in
2008; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, $17.5 billion; and child nutrition programs, $13.8 billion.
The funding level for discretionary grant programs is
determined annually through appropriations acts. Outlays
for discretionary grant programs were $186.9 billion in
94
2008. The largest four discretionary programs in 2008 were

Federal-aid Highways, $35.4 billion; Tenant Based Rental
Assistance, $15.7 billion; Education for the Disadvantaged,
$14.8 billion; and Special Education, $12.1 billion.
Table 83 at the end of this chapter identifies discretionary and mandatory grant programs separately. For
more information on these categories, see Chapter 25,
The Budget System and Concepts in this volume.
Section C of Table 82 divides grants among three major categories: payments for individuals, grants for physical capital, and other grants. Grant outlays for payments
for individuals, which are mainly entitlement programs
in which the Federal Government and the States share

the costs, have grown significantly as a percent of total
grants. They increased from about a third of the total
in 1960 to slightly less than two-thirds in the mid-1990s,
and have remained about that proportion since then.
These grants are distributed through State or local
governments to provide cash or in-kind benefits that
constitute income transfers to individuals or families. The major grant in this category is Medicaid.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child
nutrition programs, and housing assistance are also
large grants in this category.
Table 82. TrendS in Federal granTS To STaTe and local governmenTS

(Outlays; in billions of dollars)
Actual
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Estimate
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
2009
2010
A Distribution of grants by function:

01
02
30
01
02
05
41
06
04
06
46
18
24
04
59
28
54
06
130
65
41
24
170
52
37
13
192
50
40
08
258
72
46
07
322
87
59
09
434
202
59
09
512
192
62
10
627
218
78
10
735
203
05
02
26
02
*
70
11
06
35
02
01
109
64
38
58
*
05
01
241
121
88
94
07
71
02
498
219
158
185
05
86
07
914
171
245
279
01
68
08
1059
218
439
368
06
23
08
1353
309
936
584
12
23
08
2250
367
1248
687
53
21
21
2859
572
1978
909
48
44
26
4280
589
2180
961
42
41
27
4613
696
2812
1089
64
47
51
5678
1033
3107
1138
53
47
120
6522
N/A
N/A
70
29
80
109
102
139
241
210
288
498
533
381
914
555
504
1059
633
720
1353
940
1310
2250
1167
1692
2859
1817
2463
4280
1869
2745
4613
2191
3487
5678
2732
3790
6522
25
33
12
70
37
50
22
109
87
71
83
241
168
109
222
498
326
226
362
914
501
249
309
1059
773
272
309
1353
1444
396
410
2250
1826
487
546
2859
2739
608
933
4280
3008
727
878
4613
3717
883
1079
5678
4045
1005
1471
6522
353%
Physical capital 1 473%
Other grants 174%
Total 1000%
341%
457%
202%
1000%
362%
293%
345%
1000%
336%
219%
445%
1000%
357%
247%
396%
1000%
473%
235%
292%
1000%
571%
201%
228%
1000%
642%
176%
182%
1000%
639%
170%
191%
1000%
640%
142%
218%
1000%
652%
158%
190%
1000%
655%
155%
190%
1000%
620%
154%
226%
1000%
169
242
156
567
335
272
446
1053
480
260
838
1577
639
389
899
1926
750
342
539
1631
966
326
429
1721
1576
433
470
2479
1826
487
546
2859
2458
519
758
3736
2443
516
615
3573
3045
616
743
4404
3268
680
982
4930
76%
92%
123%
150%
155%
112%
108%
148%
160%
173%
155%
142%
182%
180%
148%
14%
183%
155%
16%
232%
201%
24%
217%
240%
32%
222%
274%
34%
182%
220%
26%
171%
189%
24%
216%
228%
31%
220%
222%
29%
235%
247%
35%
212%
220%
32%
176%
N/A
40%
235%
N/A
44%

Agriculture
Transportation
Community and regional development
Education, training, employment, and social
services
Health
Income security
General government
Other
Total
B Distribution of grants by BEA category:
Discretionary
Mandatory
Total
C Composition:
Current dollars:
Payments for individuals 1
Physical capital 1
Other grants
Total
Percentage of total grants:
Constant (FY 2000) dollars:

Physical capital 1
Other grants
Total
D Total grants as a percent of:
Federal outlays:
Total
Domestic programs 2
State and local expenditures
Gross domestic product
120
170
100
390
95
Table 82. TrendS in Federal granTS To STaTe and local governmenTScontinued

(Outlays; in billions of dollars)
Actual
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Estimate
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
219%
781%
1000%
260%
740%
1000%
219%
781%
1000%
215%
785%
1000%
206%
794%
1000%
2009
2010
E As a share of total State and local gross

investments:
Federal capital grants 246% 255% 254% 260% 354% 302%
State and local own-source financing 754% 745% 746% 740% 646% 698%
Total 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000% 1000%
N/A: Not available
1 Grants that are both payments for individuals and capital investment are shown under capital investment
2 Excludes national defense, international affairs, net interest, and undistributed offsetting receipts
Grants for physical capital assist States and localities

with construction and other physical capital activities.
The major capital grants are for highways, but there are
also grants for airports, mass transit, sewage treatment
plant construction, community development, and other
facilities. Grants for physical capital were almost half of
total grants in 1960, shortly after grants began for construction of the Interstate Highway System. The relative
share of these outlays has declined, as payments for individuals have grown. In 2008, grants for physical capital
were $72.7 billion, 16 percent of total grants.
The other grants are primarily for education, training,
employment, and social services. These grants were 19
percent of total grants in 2008.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Section D of this table shows grants as a percentage of Federal outlays, State and local expenditures,
and gross domestic product. Grants have increased as
a percentage of total Federal outlays from 11 percent
in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008. Grants as a percentage
of domestic programs were 21 percent in 2008. As a
percentage of total State and local expenditures, grants
have increased from 19 percent in 1990 to 22 percent
in 2008.
Section E shows the relative contribution of physical
capital grants in assisting States and localities with gross
investment. Federal capital grants are estimated to be 21
percent of State and local gross investment in 2008.
DETAILED FEDERAL AID TABLE

Table 83, Federal Grants to State and Local
Governments-Budget Authority and Outlays, provides
detailed budget authority and outlay data for grants, in-
cluding proposed legislation. This table displays discretionary and mandatory grant programs separately.
Table 83. Federal granTS To STaTe and local governmenTSbudgeT auTHoriTy and ouTlayS
Budget Authority
Function, Category, Agency and Program
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
national defense
discretionary:
Department of DefenseMilitary:
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Department of Energy:
Energy Programs:
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
44
11,800
295
34
828
8,210
Department of Housing and Urban Development:

Housing Programs:
Energy Innovation Fund
100
energy
discretionary:
96
Table 83. Federal granTS To STaTe and local governmenTSbudgeT auTHoriTy and ouTlayScontinued
Budget Authority
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Total, discretionary ............................................................................................................................
44
mandatory:
Tennessee Valley Authority Fund
490
Total, energy ......................................................................................................................................
534
Outlays
2010
Estimate
11,800
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
828
2010
Estimate
395
34
8,210
627
669
490
627
669
12,427
1,064
524
1,455
8,879
natural resources and environment

discretionary:
Department of Agriculture:
Farm Service Agency:
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
Forest Service:
State and Private Forestry
Management of National Forest Lands for Subsistence Uses
11
83
23
181
53
7
83
7
81
39
112
259
5
257
5
280
3
292
5
330
7
266
3
Department of Commerce:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Operations, Research, and Facilities
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction
11
67
1
286
80
1
168
9
69
1
182
76
1
108
61
1
64
25
66
27
69
12
63
145
63
137
66
44
74
74
75
75
115
100
74
79
20
76
76
20
89
81
20
67
23
71
-1
60
19
84
54
30
78
5
59
69
83
-1
61
44
92
57
27
80
Environmental Protection Agency:

State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
2,924
25
54
9,295
40
295
5,181
40
94
3,761
25
68
3,720
23
115
5,223
53
167
3,848
10,879
6,289
4,927
5,121
6,509
19
112
101
133
108
102
14
7
250
9
3
26
250
7
3
30
250
14
7
12
9
3
26
64
8
3
30
212
94
21
91
152
23
21
42
78
19
19
Department of the Interior:

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement:
Regulation and Technology
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
United States Geological Survey:
Surveys, Investigations, and Research
United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
Landowner Incentive Program
National Park Service:
Urban Park and Recreation Fund
National Recreation and Preservation
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
Historic Preservation Fund
mandatory:
Bureau of Land Management:
Miscellaneous Permanent Payment Accounts
Minerals Management Service:
National Forests Fund, Payment to States
Leases of Lands Acquired for Flood Control, Navigation, and Allied Purposes
States Share from Certain Gulf of Mexico Leases
Coastal Impact Assistance
Payments to States in Lieu of Coal Fee Receipts
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
Bureau of Reclamation:
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account
97
Budget Authority
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
340
52
491
368
55
497
394
55
484
290
52
420
318
55
462
347
55
483
10
Department of the Treasury:

Financial Management Service:
Payment to Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Trust Fund
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
1,291
1,451
1,491
975
1,119
1,324
Total, natural resources and environment .....................................................................................
5,139
12,330
7,780
5,902
6,240
7,833
458
7
267
38
498
15
282
63
512
20
283
62
424
7
294
23
458
4
274
40
547
12
285
45
22
11
15
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
Sport Fish Restoration
National Park Service:
Land Acquisition and State Assistance
agriculture
discretionary:
National Institute of Food and Agriculture:
Extension Activities
Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers
Research and Education Activities
Integrated Activities
Agricultural Marketing Service:
Payments to States and Possessions
State Mediation Grants
796
864
882
763
795
899
49
55
16
99
50
171
83
99
50
171
83
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
99
270
138
99
221
99
Total, agriculture ...............................................................................................................................
895
1,134
1,020
862
1,016
998

mandatory:
Payments to States and Possessions
Aquaculture Assistance
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
commerce and Housing credit

mandatory:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries
National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund
29
23
16
590
348
Federal Communications Commission:

Universal Service Fund
1,489
2,222
1,810
1,489
2,222
1,810
Total, commerce and Housing credit ..............................................................................................
1,497
2,251
1,819
1,496
2,835
2,174
3,515
1,100
3,515
3,515
3,808
.....
3,608
.....
4,156
.....
1,045
1,092
1,048
954
Transportation
discretionary:
Department of Transportation:
Federal Aviation Administration:
Grants-in-aid for Airports
Grants-in-aid for Airports (non-add obligation limitations) 1 ...................................................
Federal Highway Administration:
Emergency Relief Program
98
Budget Authority
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
Highway Infrastructure Investment

Federal-Aid-Highways, General Fund Share
State Infrastructure Banks
Appalachian Development Highway System
Federal-aid Highways
Federal-aid Highways (non-add obligation limitations) 1 ........................................................
Miscellaneous Appropriations
Miscellaneous Highway Trust Funds
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
Motor Carier Safety Grants (non-add obligation limitations) 1.................................................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
Highway Traffic Safety Grants (non-add obligation limitations) 1 ............................................
Federal Railroad Administration:
Emergency Railroad Rehabilitation and Repair
Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program
Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program
Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Federal Transit Administration:
Transit Capital Assistance
Fixed Guideway Infrastructure Investment
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
Interstate Transfer Grants-transit
Formula Grants
Formula and Bus Grants, General Fund Share
Capital Investment Grants
Discretionary Grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account)
Formula and Bus Grants
Formula and Bus Grants (non-add obligation limitations) 1 ...................................................
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
Pipeline Safety
16
40,208
10
-1
27,500
10
40,700
167
36,107
5,000
61
35,429
......
89
142
5,500
1
55
37,887
......
108
84
11,825
9,749
38
30,246
......
111
73
300
307
310
256
......
400
......
308
......
599
620
626
467
......
642
......
669
......
20
30
20
90
25
8,000
1,000
20
6
23
160
1
18
23
1,220
1,569
8,776
6,900
750
2,557
8,261
3,343
1,827
5,000
54
1,330
2,473
21
5,969
......
1,518
165
41
1
1,008
2,744
20
7,659
......
2,070
225
18
1
581
735
2,505
20
7,865
......
23
35
39
23
35
40
2,732
47,134
42,316
51,215
62,734
73,450
Total, obligation limitations (non-add) 1 .................................................................................................
53,398
53,403
14,451
......
......
......
3,404
3,820
3,515
37,446
1
30,747
1
5,179
289
300
310
570
542
608
mandatory:
Department of Transportation:
Federal Aviation Administration:
Grants-in-aid for Airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) 1
Federal Highway Administration:
Federal-aid Highways 1
Miscellaneous Appropriations
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Motor Carrier Safety Grants 1
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Highway Traffic Safety Grants 1
Federal Transit Administration:
Formula and Bus Grants 1
8,747
8,261
5,000
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
50,457
43,671
14,612
Total, Transportation ..........................................................................................................................
53,189
90,805
56,928
51,216
62,735
73,450
community and regional development

discretionary:
Rural Development:
Rural Community Advancement Program
99
Budget Authority
Rural Utilities Service:
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
Rural Housing Service:
Rural BusinessCooperative Service:
Rural Business Program Account
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
57
659
331
1,920
43
546
44
585
54
863
83
990
78
298
48
96
230
111
97
256
87
105
151
140
Economic Development Administration:
Economic Development Assistance Programs
743
375
246
238
366
458
Department of Homeland Security:

Federal Emergency Management Agency:
State and Local Programs
United States Fire Administration and Training
Mitigation Grants
Disaster Relief
4,255
4
-2
10,059
4,756
4
956
3,867
4
1,505
2,870
3
33
5,724
3,331
3
7,263
5,554
5
2,075
17,207
-1
5
-1
6,897
6
10
4,450
8,935
3
5
19
17
8,010
7
27
17
8,307
32
17

Community Planning and Development:
Community Development Fund
Urban Development Action Grants
Community Development Loan Guarantees Program Account
Brownfields Redevelopment
Empowerment Zones/enterprise Communities/renewal Communities
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes:
Lead Hazard Reduction
142
240
140
149
171
194

Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education:
Operation of Indian Programs
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program Account
Appalachian Regional Commission
Delta Regional Authority
Denali Commission
258
15
65
12
22
157
19
66
13
12
157
8
67
13
12
250
13
69
8
46
188
18
64
13
42
163
16
65
13
78
33,674
16,316
11,193
19,217
20,818
18,301

Community Development Loan Guarantees Program Account
Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Community Development Loan Guarantees Liquidating Account
3
980
1,960
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
983
1,960
Total, community and regional development ................................................................................
33,679
16,319
11,193
19,221
21,801
20,261
19
19
24
2
29
2
23
2
116
1,236
14,892
5,173
118
1,361
25,807
5,703
53,542
118
1,261
16,382
5,051
100
113
1,243
14,799
5,208
112
1,558
15,720
5,087
5,354
116
1,180
21,845
5,593
26,781
mandatory:
education, Training, employment, and Social Services

discretionary:
National Telecommunications and Information Administration:
Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction
Information Infrastructure Grants
Department of Education:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:
Indian Education
Impact Aid
Education for the Disadvantaged
School Improvement Programs
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
Office of Innovation and Improvement:
100
Budget Authority
Innovation and Improvement
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools:
Safe Schools and Citizenship Education
Office of English Language Acquisition:
English Language Acquisition
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:
Special Education
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
American Printing House for the Blind
Office of Vocational and Adult Education:
Career, Technical and Adult Education
Office of Postsecondary Education:
Higher Education
Office of Federal Student Aid:
Student Financial Assistance
Institute of Education Sciences
Hurricane Education Recovery
Department of Health and Human Services:
Administration for Children and Families:
Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Children and Families Services Programs
Administration on Aging:
Aging Services Programs
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
639
833
1,096
577
813
774
614
639
388
682
663
625
658
686
686
557
833
700
10,348
141
22
22,831
739
23
12,366
146
23
12,078
142
20
11,452
372
27
16,633
458
23
1,920
1,923
1,996
1,871
2,064
1,935
341
353
353
418
424
387
64
43
64
310
64
59
68
28
177
64
52
181
64
118
62
8,650
62
13,507
62
9,090
62
8,633
62
10,563
62
11,163
1,393
1,569
1,470
1,383
1,487
1,500

Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education:
Operation of Indian Programs
99
103
158
96
102
138
Department of Labor:
Employment and Training Administration:
Training and Employment Services
Community Service Employment for Older Americans
State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations
Unemployment Trust Fund
3,236
109
89
951
5,889
419
92
1,364
2,970
299
75
970
3,052
84
148
996
4,072
161
103
1,411
4,593
272
95
971
Corporation for National and Community Service:

Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses
National and Community Service Programs, Operating Expenses
VISTA Advance Payments Revolving Fund
Operating Expenses
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
360
448
464
461
493
481
85
140
141
448
11
89
315
461
3
320
481
District of Columbia:
District of Columbia General and Special Payments:
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
Federal Payment to Jump Start Public School Reform
Federal Payment for School Improvement
33
41
35
20
54
35
74
33
41
35
20
54
35
74
National Endowment for the Arts:

National Endowment for the Arts: Grants and Administration
48
71
53
43
48
66
Institute of Museum and Library Services:

Office of Museum and Library Services: Grants and Administration
250
258
248
238
236
255
51,995
139,319
56,567
53,630
64,037
97,285
Department of Education:
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:
Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
2,874
2,975
3,085
2,841
3,007
3,053

Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Payments to States for Home Visitation
Social Services Block Grant
358
2,300
372
1,700
372
124
1,700
349
1,843
357
1,909
371
87
2,009
mandatory:
101
Budget Authority
Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
260
Outlays
2010
Estimate
516
2008
Actual
686
2009
Estimate
241
317
2010
Estimate
468
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
5,792
5,563
5,967
5,274
5,590
5,988
Total, education, Training, employment, and Social Services .......................................................
57,787
144,882
62,534
58,904
69,627
103,273
49
50
51
49
50
51
2,847
2,847
2,847
3,110
3,060
2,987
2,374
2,832
2,358
2,902
2,358
2,958
2,344
2,847
2,331
2,877
2,335
2,919
398
124
863
700
146
2,223
147
654
160
569
154
239
1,017
420
255
Occupational Safety and Health Administration:
Salaries and Expenses
Mine Safety and Health Administration:
99
106
116
99
103
116
8,732
9,981
10,709
9,272
9,392
10,109

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services:
Grants to States for Medicaid
Childrens Health Insurance Fund
State Grants and Demonstrations
Child Enrollment Contingency Fund
206,886
6,640
764
257,148
13,832
633
2,164
292,563
12,565
657
68
201,426
6,900
427
262,389
8,466
897
100
289,664
9,895
816
200
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
214,290
273,777
305,853
208,753
271,852
300,575
Total, Health .......................................................................................................................................
223,022
283,758
316,562
218,025
281,244
310,684
Food and Nutrition Service:
Commodity Assistance Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
214
6,170
384
7,360
234
7,777
221
6,160
345
6,972
298
7,506

Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Refugee and Entrant Assistance
Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant
2,570
408
2,056
5,100
450
4,120
3,200
541
2,120
2,663
471
2,067
4,334
501
2,883
3,403
569
3,287

Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Emergency Food and Shelter
153
300
100
154
300
100
Health
discretionary:
Food Safety and Inspection Service:
Health Resources and Services Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Disease Control, Research, and Training
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Departmental Management:
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund
Prevention and Wellness Fund
General Departmental Management
mandatory:
income Security
discretionary:

Public and Indian Housing Programs:
102
Budget Authority
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
4,200
99
9
15,555
239
2,423
624
4,455
120
10
16,217
222
6,435
1,155
4,600
10
17,836
232
2,244
645
250
4,113
526
7
15,741
261
2,895
572
4,391
428
7
16,152
269
3,039
678
4,559
278
7
17,764
277
4,251
785
7
1,539
1,696
299
13
73
3,174
4,071
308
26
1,794
1,825
310
1,440
1,969
314
17
1,551
2,244
289
24
33
2,422
2,927
300
26
10
-1
231
721
248
763
114
522
136
243
321
1,008
292
973
225
746
50
94
2,386
3,324
3,257
2,551
3,288
3,194
41,677
58,242
47,990
43,471
48,993
53,085
Public Housing Operating Fund

Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (HOPE VI)
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Project-based Rental Assistance
Public Housing Capital Fund
Choice Neighborhoods
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnership Program
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
Rural Housing and Economic Development
Permanent Supportive Housing
Housing Programs:
Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere Grants (HOPE Grants)
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Housing for the Elderly
Housing for Persons with Disabilities Contract Renewals and Amendments
Housing for the Elderly Contract Renewals and Amendments
mandatory:
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (section 32)
Food and Nutrition Service:
Food Stamp Program
Commodity Assistance Program
Child Nutrition Programs
491
631
1,346
690
631
1,346
4,891
21
13,757
5,256
21
15,002
5,469
21
17,735
4,935
9
13,761
5,238
9
15,381
5,454
9
17,414

Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
TANF Contingency Fund
Payments to States for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Child Care Entitlement to States
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
4,273
6,877
2,917
17,059
4,317
5,000
7,188
2,917
17,059
4,575
450
7,335
2,917
17,059
4,283
348
6,750
2,910
17,532
4,472
1,660
7,079
2,927
18,623
4,591
329
1,400
7,198
2,938
18,047
723
1,947
723
1,947

Departmental Offices:
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing Projects in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Credit
Allocations
Internal Revenue Service:
Payments to Territories in Lieu of Recovery Rebates
2,930
2,930
1,413
276
1,413
276
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
51,699
61,320
58,854
52,631
59,949
60,673
Total, income Security .......................................................................................................................
93,376
119,562
106,844
96,102
108,942
113,758
39
34
29
23
21
32
Social Security
mandatory:
Social Security Administration:
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
103
Budget Authority
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
veterans benefits and Services

discretionary:
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Health Administration:
Medical Services
Departmental Administration:
Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities
Grants for the Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries
Total, veterans benefits and Services .............................................................................................
548
679
739
548
679
739
165
40
325
42
85
42
116
31
99
29
148
30
753
1,046
866
695
807
917
50
54
72
54
47
52
administration of Justice
discretionary:
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity:
Fair Housing Activities
Department of Justice:
Legal Activities and US Marshals:
Assets Forfeiture Fund
Office of Justice Programs:
Justice Assistance
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Juvenile Justice Programs
Community Oriented Policing Services
Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
21
21
21
21
21
21
131
1,111
313
246
351
153
4,291
333
1,178
583
171
686
287
721
394
250
1,497
323
310
337
225
3,356
341
393
378
185
1,664
333
945
498
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

28
26
26
28
26
26
Federal Drug Control Programs:

High-intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
208
234
220
209
227
193
State Justice Institute:

State Justice Institute: Salaries and Expenses
2,463
6,877
2,603
3,033
5,018
3,922
555
580
567
453
535
520
739
599
664
611
638
680

Departmental Offices:
Treasury Forfeiture Fund
130
208
67
104
187
164
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
1,424
1,387
1,298
1,168
1,360
1,364
Total, administration of Justice .......................................................................................................
3,887
8,264
3,901
4,201
6,378
5,286
14
14
14
14
14
14
mandatory:
Department of Justice:
Legal Activities and US Marshals:
Assets Forfeiture Fund
Office of Justice Programs:
Crime Victims Fund
general government
discretionary:
Disabled Voter Services
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
Insular Affairs:
104
Budget Authority
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
Outlays
2010
Estimate
2008
Actual
2009
Estimate
2010
Estimate
48
50
52
54
50
1
52
1
229
229
224
48
248
52
249
52
216
41
246
52
249
52
37
54
63
37
54
63
Election Assistance Commission:

Election Reform Programs
Election Data Collections Grants
115
10
106
52
2
2
107
6
105
4
725
524
482
597
531
540
Forest Service:
Forest Service Permanent Appropriations
78
550
495
437
617
495
Department of Energy:
Energy Programs:
Payments to States under Federal Power Act

Customs and Border Protection:
Refunds, Transfers, and Expenses of Operation, Puerto Rico
90
92
92
84
92
92
2,460
5
9
2,048
8
10
2,187
14
2,460
5
9
2,048
8
10
2,187
14
187
187
85
16
162
82
11
12
12
12
12
12
28
129
28
148
28
129
16
129
24
148
25
129
139
378
390
517
390
373
491
486
373
491
486
50
192
50
192
Corps of Engineers-Civil Works:

Permanent Appropriations
Total, mandatory ................................................................................................................................
3,516
4,014
4,122
3,548
4,191
4,116
Assistance to Territories
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Department-Wide Programs:
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
District of Columbia:
District of Columbia Courts:
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
District of Columbia General and Special Payments:
Federal Support for Economic Development and Management Reforms in the District
mandatory:

Minerals Management Service:
Mineral Leasing and Associated Payments
National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska
Geothermal Lease Revenues, Payment to Counties
Payments to States in Lieu of Coal Fee Receipts
National Wildlife Refuge Fund
Insular Affairs:
Assistance to Territories
Payments to the United States Territories, Fiscal Assistance
Department-Wide Programs:
Payments in Lieu of Taxes
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
Internal Revenue Collections for Puerto Rico
Internal Revenue Service:
Build American Bond Payments
Total, general government ...............................................................................................................
4,241
4,538
4,604
4,145
4,722
4,656
Total, grants .......................................................................................................................................
478,038
697,350
575,144
461,317
567,823
652,201
discretionary ...........................................................................................................
147,439
302,982
180,292
186,855
219,074
273,227
Transportation obligation limitations (non-add) 1........................................................
53,398
54,403
14,451
......
......
......
mandatory ...............................................................................................................
330,599
394,368
394,852
274,462
348,749
378,974
Mandatory contract authority provides budget authority for these programs, but program levels are set by discretionary obligation limitations in appropriations bills and outlays are
recorded as discretionary This table shows the obligation limitations as non-additive items to avoid double counting For all surface transportation programs subject to reauthorization, the
Budget includes placeholder funding levels for FY 2010 that do not represent Administration policy
1
105
8. Aid to StAte And LocAL GovernmentS
OTHER INFORMATION ON FEDERAL AID TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Additional information regarding aid to State and local
governments can be found elsewhere in this Budget and
in other documents.
major public physical capital investment programs
providing Federal grants to State and local governments
are identified in chapter 6, Federal investment.
data for summary and detailed grants to State and
local governments can be found in many sections of a
separate volume of the Budget entitled Historical Tables.
Section 12 of that document is devoted exclusively to
grants to State and local governments. Additional information on grants can be found in Section 6 (composition
of Federal Government outlays); Section 9 (Federal
Government outlays for investment: major Physical
capital, research and development, and education and
training); Section 11 (Federal Government Payments for
individuals); and Section 15 (total (Federal and State and
Local) Government Finances).
in addition to these sources, a number of other sources
of information are available that use slightly different
concepts of grants, provide State-by-State information,
provide information on how to apply for Federal aid, or
display information about audits.
current and updated grant receipt information by State
and local governments can be found on USAspending.gov.
this public website also contains contract and loan information and is updated monthly. Additional current and
updated information about grants provided specifically by
the recovery Act can be found on Recovery.gov.
the Bureau of the census in the department of
commerce provides data on public finances, including Federal aid to State and local governments. the
Bureaus major reports and databases on grant-making
include:
Federal Aid to States, a report on Federal grant
spending by State for the most recently completed
fiscal year.
The Consolidated Federal Funds Report is an annual document that shows the distribution of Federal
spending by State and county areas and by local governmental jurisdictions.
the Federal Assistance Awards data System
(FAAdS) provides computerized information about
current grant funding. data on all direct assistance
awards are provided quarterly to the States and to
the congress.
the Federal Audit clearinghouse maintains an online database (harvester.census.gov/sac) that provides access to summary information about audits
conducted under omB circular A133, Audits to
States, Local Governments, and non-Profit organizations. information is available for each audited
entity, including the amount of Federal money expended by program and whether there were audit
findings.
the Bureau of economic Analysis, also in the
department of commerce, publishes the monthly Survey
of Current Business, which provides data on the national
income and product accounts (niPA), a broad statistical concept encompassing the entire economy. these accounts include data on Federal grants to State and local
governments. data using the niPA concepts appear in
this volume in chapter 14, national income and Product
Accounts.
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a primary reference source for communities wishing to apply
for grants and other domestic assistance. the Catalog is
prepared by the General Services Administration and
contains a detailed listing of grant and other assistance
programs; discussions of eligibility criteria, application
procedures, and estimated obligations; and related information. the Catalog is available on the internet at www.
cfda.gov.
APPENDIX: SELECTED GRANT DATA BY STATE

this Appendix displays State-by-State spending for
the selected grant programs to State and local governments shown in the following table, Summary of Grant
Programs by Agency, Bureau, and Program. the programs selected here cover more than 80 percent of total
grant spending.
the first summary table shows the obligations for each
program. the second summary table, Summary of Grant
Programs by State, shows the obligations for each State
for these programs. Both of these tables combine funding provided in the recovery Act with funding provided
through other authority.
the third summary table, Summary of recovery Act

Grants by Agency, Bureau, and Program shows obligations
made from funding provided by the recovery Act for the grant
programs from the first summary table. For those grant programs created by the recovery Act, such as the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund, the amounts in this table are the same
as in the first table. the fourth summary table, Summary
of recovery Act Grants by State shows the amounts for each
State from funding provided by the recovery Act.
the individual program tables display obligations for
each program on a State-by-State basis, consistent with
the estimates in this Budget. these tables combine funding provided by the recovery Act with funding provided
106
through other authority. Each table reports the following
information:
The Federal agency that administers the program.
The program title and number as contained in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
The budget account number from which the program is funded.
Actual 2008 obligations by State, Federal territory,
and Indian tribes in thousands of dollars. Undistributed obligations shown at the bottom of each page
are generally project funds that are not distributed
by formula, or programs for which State-by-State

data are not available.
Estimates of 2009 obligations by State from previous
budget authority and from new budget authority, including new authority provided by the Recovery Act.
Estimates of 2010 obligations by State, which are
based on the 2010 Budget request, unless otherwise
noted.
The percentage share of 2010 estimated program
funds distributed to each State.
107
Table 84. Summary oF ProgramS by agency, bureau, and Program

(obligations in millions of dollars)
Estimated FY 2009 obligations from:

Agency, Bureau, and Program
FY 2008
(actual)
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
department of agriculture, Food and nutrition Service:

School Breakfast Program (10553)
National School Lunch Program (10555)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (10557)
Child and Adult Care Food Program (10558)
State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps)
(10561)
2,393
8,365
6,371
2,245
255
13
2,633
8,817
7,258
2,514
2,633
9,072
7,272
2,514
2,867
9,821
7,793
2,687
2,620
2,894
2,894
2,986
department of education, office of elementary and Secondary education:

Title I Grants to Locational Agencies (84010)
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (84367)
Education State Grants, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (84394)
Government Services, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (84397)
13,899
2,935
24,492
2,948
39,743
8,843
24,492
2,948
39,743
8,843
12,992
2,948
department of education, office of Special education and rehabilitative Services:

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants (84126)
IDEA Part B: Grants to States & Grants to States Recovery Act (84323)
2,874
10,948
3,515
22,805
3,515
22,805
3,085
11,505
department of energy, energy Programs:

State Energy Program (81041)
Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons (81042)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (81043)
44
227
1,600
2,950
1,600
1,600
2,950
1,600
1,625
2,720
1,600
department of Health and Human Services, centers for medicare and medicaid Services:
Childrens Health Insurance Program (93767)
Grants to States for Medicaid (93778)
6,047
214,015
10,562
266,611
10,562
266,611
12,520
293,225
department of Health and Human Services, administration for children and Families:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - Family Assistance Grants (93558)
Child Support Enforcement - Federal Share of State and Local Administrative Costs and Incentives (93563)
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (93568)
Child Care and Development Block Grant (93575)
Child Care and Development Fund - Mandatory (93596a)
Child Care and Development Fund - Matching (93596b)
Head Start (93600)
Foster Care - Title IVE (93658)
Adoption Assistance (93659)
Social Services Block Grant (93667)
17,041
4,542
1,980
2,062
1,240
1,677
6,877
4,525
2,038
1,700
17,059
4,482
4,510
4,127
1,240
1,677
9,113
4,660
2,371
1,700
17,059
4,482
4,510
4,127
1,240
1,677
9,113
4,660
2,371
1,700
17,059
4,638
2,410
2,127
1,240
1,677
7,235
4,681
2,462
1,700
department of Health and Human Services, Hiv/aidS bureau:

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act Part B HIV Care Grants (93917)
1,150
1,115
1,115
1,209
department of Housing and urban development, Public and indian Housing Programs:
Public Housing Operating Fund (14850)
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (14871)
Public Housing Capital Fund (14872)
4,200
15,552
2,497
356
94
4,455
16,217
6,434
4,455
16,573
6,528
4,600
17,836
2,244
department of Housing and urban development, community Planning and development:

Community Development Block Grants and Neighborhood Stabilization Program (14218)
Emergency Shelter Grant, Homelessness Prevention and Rapid-Re-housing Program (14231)
HOME Investment Partnership Program (14258)
Tax Credit Assistance Program (14258)
4,855
160
1,704
8,341
4,909
1,652
1,825
2,250
13,250
1,652
1,825
2,250
6,404
150
1,825
department of Justice, office of Justice Programs:

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (16738)
168
2,512
2,512
519
department of labor, employment and Training administration:

Unemployment Insurance (17225)
WIA Youth Activities (17259)
WIA Dislocated Workers (17260)
2,564
875
1,005
65
2,822
2,112
2,429
2,887
2,112
2,429
924
1,188
department of Transportation, Federal aviation administration:

Airport Improvement Program (20106)
3,557
4,493
4,493
3,384
department of Transportation, Federal Highway administration:

Highway Planning and Construction (20205)
37,362
54,105
54,105
54,512
department of Transportation, Federal Transit administration:

Federal Transit Formula Grants Programs (20507)
8,217
1,207
11,793
13,000
10,139
environmental Protection agency, office of water:

Capitalization Grant for Clean Water State Revolving Funds (66458)
Capitalization Grant for Drinking Water Stafe Revolving Funds (66468)
542
756
147
138
4,658
2,504
4,806
2,642
2,373
939
Total ...................................................................................................................................................................
401,828
10,616
587,009
597,627
525,046
108
Table 85. Summary oF ProgramS by STaTe

Programs distributed in all years

State or Territory
All programs
FY 2008
(actual)

FY 2008
(actual)
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Freely Associated States
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
5,644
1,783
8,266
4,263
48,691
4,028
4,562
1,096
2,217
16,864
10,647
1,572
1,728
13,767
7,347
3,431
2,922
6,119
8,589
2,323
6,097
10,581
11,878
6,798
5,212
8,116
1,402
1,990
1,976
1,335
9,990
3,714
40,347
11,355
995
14,932
4,702
4,248
16,974
1,790
5,331
1,097
8,237
28,124
2,362
1,196
6,295
7,320
3,118
6,212
822
57
191
48
2,928
46
158
874
5,644
1,783
8,266
4,263
48,691
4,028
4,562
1,096
2,217
16,864
10,647
1,572
1,728
13,767
7,347
3,431
2,922
6,119
8,589
2,323
6,097
10,581
11,878
6,798
5,212
8,116
1,402
1,990
1,976
1,335
9,990
3,714
40,347
11,355
995
14,932
4,702
4,248
16,974
1,790
5,331
1,097
8,237
28,124
2,362
1,196
6,295
7,320
3,118
6,212
822
57
191
48
2,928
46
158
874
28
6
58
31
231
21
111
16
4
86
59
15
4
103
194
224
13
17
2,474
4
53
53
26
40
23
83
4
22
20
22
23
13
152
84
6
115
19
8
52
14
23
4
45
1,458
8
13
65
34
10
65
1
*
*
1
91
1
*
7,687
2,272
11,736
5,948
67,416
6,182
6,907
1,678
2,676
25,559
15,243
2,244
2,491
20,057
10,253
4,870
4,153
8,348
10,153
3,122
9,193
14,889
17,436
9,376
6,793
11,118
1,905
2,908
3,007
1,969
14,721
5,030
55,938
15,930
1,383
21,379
6,625
6,126
23,935
2,557
7,476
1,541
10,959
39,261
3,565
1,632
9,347
10,721
4,067
9,041
1,104
101
250
83
5,026
61
216
1,271
7,715
2,278
11,795
5,980
67,647
6,202
7,018
1,694
2,680
25,645
15,302
2,260
2,494
20,160
10,448
5,094
4,166
8,364
12,626
3,126
9,246
14,941
17,463
9,416
6,816
11,202
1,909
2,930
3,027
1,990
14,744
5,043
56,090
16,014
1,389
21,495
6,645
6,134
23,987
2,571
7,500
1,545
11,004
40,719
3,573
1,645
9,413
10,756
4,078
9,106
1,105
101
250
84
5,117
61
217
1,271
6,389
1,974
10,455
5,256
57,626
4,862
5,802
1,563
2,408
20,353
12,551
1,823
2,143
16,159
8,791
4,172
3,334
7,198
9,053
2,669
7,751
12,358
14,287
8,232
6,070
9,870
1,610
2,433
2,356
1,626
12,381
4,567
49,943
13,822
1,177
18,388
5,568
5,127
20,501
2,187
6,133
1,274
9,514
32,520
2,873
1,435
7,520
9,168
3,590
7,549
938
89
224
73
3,334
45
182
1,060
161
031
181
106
1099
120
095
031
028
497
311
034
041
430
196
078
081
149
194
043
150
202
368
129
125
177
034
054
061
035
247
081
777
266
027
378
119
102
387
038
147
031
196
893
069
026
201
163
067
162
026
007
011
003
253
003
008
071
Total, programs distributed by State in all years ............................
394,710
394,710
6,350
556,941
563,292
472,355
10000
memorandum:
Not distributed by State in all years 1
Total, including undistributed
* $500,000 or less or 0005 percent or less
1 The sum of programs not distributed by State in all years
7,118
7,118
4,267
30,067
34,335
52,691
N/A
401,828
401,828
10,616
587,009
597,627
525,046
N/A
109
Table 86.
Summary of recovery acT GranTS by aGency, bureau, and ProGram


Agency, Bureau, and Program
FY 2008 (actual)
Previous
authority
New authority
FY 2010
(estimated)
Total
department of agriculture, Food and nutrition Service:

State Administrative Matching Grants for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food
Stamps) (10561)
144
144
146
department of education, office of elementary and Secondary education:

Title I Grants to Locational Agencies (8401)
Education State Grants, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (84394)
Government Services, State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (84397)
10,000
39,743
8,843
10,000
39,743
8,843
department of education, office of Special education and rehabilitative Services:

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants, Recovery Act (84126)
IDEA Part B: Grants to States - Recovery Act (84391)
540
11,300
540
11,300
department of energy, energy Programs:

State Energy Program (81041)
Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons (81042)
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (81043)
1,550
2,364
1,600
1,550
2,364
1,600
1,550
2,364
1,600
department of Health and Human Services, centers for medicare and medicaid Services:
Grants to States for Medicaid (93778)
36,715
36,715
43,122
department of Health and Human Services, administration for children and Families:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - Family Assistance Grants (93558)
Child Care and Development Block Grant (93575)
Head Start (93600)
5,000
2,000
2,100
5,000
2,000
2,100
319
department of Housing and urban development, Public and indian Housing Programs:
Public Housing Capital Fund (14885)
3,984
3,984
department of Housing and urban development, community Planning and development:

Community Development Block Grant and Neighborhood Stabilization Program (14256)
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (14257)
Tax Credit Assistance Program (14258)
1,045
1,500
2,250
1,045
1,500
2,250
1,955
department of Justice, office of Justice Programs:

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (16803)
2,000
2,000
department of labor, employment and Training administration:

WIA Youth Activities (17259)
WIA Dislocated Workers (17260)
1,188
1,241
1,188
1,241
department of Transportation, Federal aviation administration:

Airport Improvement Program (20106)
1,098
1,098
department of Transportation, Federal Highway administration:

Highway Planning and Construction (20205)
13,405
13,405
13,405
department of Transportation, Federal Transit administration:

Transit Capital Assistance and Fixed Guideway Infrastructure Investment (20507)
5,624
5,624
1,883
environmental Protection agency, office of water:

Capitalization Grant for Clean Water State Revolving Funds (66458)
Capitalization Grant for Drinking Water Stafe Revolving Funds (66468)
3,969
1,980
3,969
1,980
161,183
161,183
66,357
Total ..........................................................................................................................................
110
Table 87. Summary oF recovery acT granTS by STaTe

Programs distributed in all years

State or Territory
All programs
FY 2008
(actual)

FY 2008
(actual)
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Other
2,145
571
2,894
1,380
17,582
1,972
1,854
514
555
7,899
4,271
647
692
6,373
2,936
1,317
1,214
2,046
2,280
715
2,588
3,689
4,874
2,648
1,550
2,852
526
815
1,077
572
4,079
1,019
12,804
4,079
395
5,465
1,776
1,651
6,148
692
2,011
446
2,892
11,216
1,098
401
3,082
2,933
912
2,410
347
42
70
34
1,960
16
65
310
2,145
571
2,894
1,380
17,582
1,972
1,854
514
555
7,899
4,271
647
692
6,373
2,936
1,317
1,214
2,046
2,280
715
2,588
3,689
4,874
2,648
1,550
2,852
526
815
1,077
572
4,079
1,019
12,804
4,079
395
5,465
1,776
1,651
6,148
692
2,011
446
2,892
11,216
1,098
401
3,082
2,933
912
2,410
347
42
70
34
1,960
16
65
310
712
223
1,212
493
6,794
633
749
232
232
2,864
1,377
236
258
2,108
1,025
457
382
694
870
286
945
1,465
1,589
1,196
587
1,070
214
277
368
169
1,388
397
5,715
1,527
161
1,864
670
577
2,321
307
654
168
1,088
3,790
303
184
1,046
1,099
319
769
140
19
32
19
224
0
26
32
130
041
222
090
1245
116
137
042
043
525
252
043
047
386
188
084
070
127
160
052
173
269
291
219
108
196
039
051
068
031
254
073
1047
280
030
342
123
106
425
056
120
031
199
695
056
034
192
201
058
141
026
003
006
003
041
*
005
006
Total, programs distributed by State in all years ............................
149,398
149,398
54,559
10000
memorandum:
Not distributed by State in all years 1
11,785
11,785
11,798
N/A
161,183
161,183
66,357
N/A
Total, including undistributed

* $500,000 or less or 0005 percent or less
1 The sum of programs not distributed by State in all years
111
department of agriculture, Food and nutrition Service
12353901605
Table 88. ScHool breakFaST Program (10.553)

(obligations in thousands of dollars)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
DoD/USAF/USMC/USN
Total
* $500 or less or 0005 percent or less
1 Excludes undistributed obligations
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
47,136
5,361
49,386
34,165
290,359
20,507
14,871
5,992
4,453
131,484
121,569
8,006
13,004
65,942
43,812
15,076
18,471
48,580
50,608
7,015
27,966
31,210
54,326
25,852
46,605
46,315
5,135
10,215
13,897
3,455
38,051
27,180
130,241
82,066
3,307
68,748
41,904
27,115
58,824
5,917
54,020
5,419
58,605
320,010
12,747
3,498
44,400
35,639
18,054
25,095
2,531
1,780
31,325
975
34,788
16
52,629
5,986
55,141
38,146
324,195
22,897
16,604
6,690
4,972
146,807
135,737
8,939
14,519
73,626
48,917
16,833
20,623
54,241
56,505
7,832
31,225
34,847
60,657
28,865
52,036
51,712
5,733
11,405
15,516
3,858
42,485
30,347
145,419
91,629
3,692
76,759
46,787
30,275
65,679
6,607
60,315
6,050
65,434
357,301
14,232
3,906
49,574
39,792
20,158
28,019
2,826
1,987
34,975
1,089
18
52,629
5,986
55,141
38,146
324,195
22,897
16,604
6,690
4,972
146,807
135,737
8,939
14,519
73,626
48,917
16,833
20,623
54,241
56,505
7,832
31,225
34,847
60,657
28,865
52,036
51,712
5,733
11,405
15,516
3,858
42,485
30,347
145,419
91,629
3,692
76,759
46,787
30,275
65,679
6,607
60,315
6,050
65,434
357,301
14,232
3,906
49,574
39,792
20,158
28,019
2,826
1,987
34,975
1,089
18
57,299
6,517
60,034
41,531
352,962
24,928
18,077
7,284
5,413
159,832
147,780
9,732
15,808
80,159
53,258
18,326
22,453
59,054
61,519
8,527
33,996
37,939
66,039
31,426
56,653
56,301
6,242
12,417
16,893
4,200
46,255
33,040
158,321
99,760
4,020
83,570
50,939
32,961
71,507
7,193
65,667
6,587
71,240
389,005
15,495
4,252
53,973
43,323
21,946
30,506
3,077
2,164
38,079
1,185
19
2,393,028
......
2,633,048
2,633,048
2,866,683
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
200
023
209
145
1231
087
063
025
019
558
516
034
055
280
186
064
078
206
215
030
119
132
230
110
198
196
022
043
059
015
161
115
552
348
014
292
178
115
249
025
229
023
249
1357
054
015
188
151
077
106
011
008
133
004
*
1
100.00
112
12353901605
Table 89. naTional ScHool luncH Program (10.555)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
DoD/USAF/USMC/USN
157,397
24,249
188,331
100,499
1,110,177
88,360
65,898
19,460
15,045
465,736
351,313
29,415
37,680
311,769
168,598
69,837
71,162
137,594
154,480
25,088
101,421
116,329
210,897
107,414
130,222
145,513
19,290
46,122
57,534
17,099
161,703
69,789
509,874
264,467
13,361
244,628
117,028
79,125
247,912
23,175
143,838
20,837
182,110
943,657
64,062
10,518
153,524
131,501
49,755
112,152
10,293
5,502
124,360
4,688
125,042
8,285
4,869
750
5,826
3,109
34,344
2,733
2,039
602
465
14,408
10,868
910
1,166
9,645
5,216
2,160
2,201
4,257
4,779
776
3,137
3,599
6,524
3,323
4,028
4,501
597
1,427
1,780
529
5,002
2,159
15,773
8,181
413
7,568
3,620
2,448
7,669
717
4,450
645
5,634
29,192
1,982
325
4,749
4,068
1,539
3,469
318
170
3,847
145
256
168,415
25,947
201,514
107,534
1,187,889
94,546
70,510
20,822
16,099
498,338
375,905
31,474
40,317
333,592
180,399
74,726
76,144
147,225
165,293
26,844
108,521
124,472
225,660
114,933
139,338
155,699
20,640
49,350
61,561
18,296
173,022
74,674
545,565
282,980
14,297
261,751
125,220
84,663
265,266
24,797
153,906
22,295
194,857
1,009,714
68,546
11,255
164,271
140,706
53,238
120,003
11,014
5,887
133,065
5,016
8,865
173,284
26,697
207,340
110,643
1,222,233
97,279
72,549
21,424
16,564
512,746
386,773
32,384
41,483
343,237
185,615
76,886
78,345
151,482
170,072
27,620
111,658
128,071
232,184
118,256
143,366
160,200
21,237
50,777
63,341
18,825
178,024
76,833
561,338
291,161
14,710
269,319
128,840
87,111
272,935
25,514
158,356
22,940
200,491
1,038,906
70,528
11,580
169,020
144,774
54,777
123,472
11,332
6,057
136,912
5,161
9,121
187,602
28,902
224,472
119,785
1,323,220
105,316
78,544
23,194
17,932
555,111
418,730
35,060
44,911
371,598
200,952
83,239
84,818
163,998
184,125
29,902
120,884
138,653
251,368
128,027
155,212
173,437
22,992
54,973
68,575
20,380
192,734
83,182
607,719
315,218
15,925
291,572
139,486
94,309
295,486
27,622
171,441
24,836
217,057
1,124,744
76,356
12,536
182,985
156,736
59,303
133,674
12,268
6,558
148,225
5,588
9,875
Total
8,365,115
254,907
8,816,876
9,071,783
9,821,347
Excludes undistributed obligations
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
191
029
229
122
1347
107
080
024
018
565
426
036
046
378
205
085
086
167
187
030
123
141
256
130
158
177
023
056
070
021
196
085
619
321
016
297
142
096
301
028
175
025
221
1145
078
013
186
160
060
136
012
007
151
006
010
1
100.00
113
12351001605
Table 810. SPecial SuPPlemenTal nuTriTion Program For women, inFanTS, and cHildren (wic) (10.557)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
112,737
24,133
120,977
69,895
1,040,884
67,242
45,327
15,586
13,374
348,243
230,255
34,547
27,821
214,219
105,726
51,499
47,054
103,388
112,414
18,583
92,218
88,203
175,690
99,245
86,937
95,227
15,261
29,824
37,924
13,621
117,868
44,373
401,170
183,149
10,582
198,101
67,890
71,959
171,411
19,621
91,885
14,371
127,945
588,662
41,290
13,646
100,291
132,670
37,428
80,598
8,298
7,245
8,281
4,304
221,061
6,940
60,581
1,118
237
51
254
147
2,183
141
95
33
28
731
483
73
58
450
222
108
99
217
236
39
194
185
369
208
182
200
32
63
80
29
247
93
842
384
22
416
142
151
360
41
193
30
269
1,235
87
29
210
278
79
169
17
15
17
9
464
15
127
2
124,550
26,661
133,653
77,219
1,149,954
74,288
50,077
17,219
14,775
384,734
254,382
38,166
30,737
236,666
116,804
56,895
51,984
114,221
124,193
20,530
101,880
97,445
194,099
109,645
96,047
105,205
16,860
32,949
41,897
15,048
130,219
49,023
443,207
202,340
11,691
218,858
75,004
79,499
189,372
21,677
101,513
15,877
141,351
650,345
45,616
15,076
110,800
146,572
41,349
89,043
9,168
8,004
9,149
4,755
244,224
7,667
66,929
221,235
124,787
26,712
133,907
77,366
1,152,137
74,429
50,172
17,252
14,803
385,465
254,865
38,239
30,795
237,116
117,026
57,003
52,083
114,438
124,429
20,569
102,074
97,630
194,468
109,853
96,229
105,405
16,892
33,012
41,977
15,077
130,466
49,116
444,049
202,724
11,713
219,274
75,146
79,650
189,732
21,718
101,706
15,907
141,620
651,580
45,703
15,105
111,010
146,850
41,428
89,212
9,185
8,019
9,166
4,764
244,688
7,682
67,056
221,237
137,910
29,522
147,990
85,502
1,273,300
82,256
55,448
19,066
16,360
426,001
281,668
42,261
34,033
262,051
129,333
62,998
57,561
126,473
137,515
22,732
112,809
107,898
214,919
121,405
106,349
116,490
18,669
36,483
46,392
16,662
144,186
54,281
490,746
224,044
12,945
242,335
83,049
88,027
209,685
24,002
112,402
17,580
156,514
720,102
50,510
16,693
122,685
162,294
45,785
98,595
10,151
8,863
10,130
5,265
270,421
8,490
74,108
1,368
Total
6,370,792
13,370
7,258,346
7,271,716
7,793,312
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
177
038
190
110
1634
106
071
024
021
547
361
054
044
336
166
081
074
162
176
029
145
138
276
156
136
150
024
047
060
021
185
070
630
288
017
311
107
113
269
031
144
023
201
924
065
021
157
208
059
127
013
011
013
007
347
011
095
100.00
114
12353901605
Table 811. cHild and adulT care Food Program (10.558)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
36,306
7,517
44,752
32,856
258,057
20,336
12,205
11,181
3,718
130,453
91,238
5,354
6,103
106,203
37,802
23,779
31,447
27,561
60,362
9,710
35,253
48,188
56,897
57,913
30,373
42,489
9,304
25,741
3,896
3,425
57,687
33,901
167,943
76,052
9,873
74,098
52,119
25,470
70,502
6,842
24,282
7,514
43,796
216,611
18,827
4,088
31,484
40,853
14,006
38,372
4,706
290
24,431
692
-69,663
39,427
8,163
48,599
35,680
280,242
22,084
13,254
12,142
4,038
141,667
99,081
5,814
6,628
115,333
41,052
25,823
34,150
29,930
65,551
10,545
38,283
52,330
61,788
62,891
32,984
46,141
10,104
27,954
4,231
3,719
62,646
36,815
182,380
82,590
10,722
80,468
56,599
27,659
76,563
7,430
26,369
8,160
47,561
235,232
20,445
4,439
34,190
44,365
15,210
41,671
5,111
315
26,531
751
39,427
8,163
48,599
35,680
280,242
22,084
13,254
12,142
4,038
141,667
99,081
5,814
6,628
115,333
41,052
25,823
34,150
29,930
65,551
10,545
38,283
52,330
61,788
62,891
32,984
46,141
10,104
27,954
4,231
3,719
62,646
36,815
182,380
82,590
10,722
80,468
56,599
27,659
76,563
7,430
26,369
8,160
47,561
235,232
20,445
4,439
34,190
44,365
15,210
41,671
5,111
315
26,531
751
42,135
8,724
51,937
38,131
299,491
23,601
14,165
12,976
4,315
151,398
105,887
6,214
7,083
123,255
43,871
27,597
36,496
31,986
70,053
11,269
40,913
55,925
66,032
67,211
35,250
49,311
10,798
29,874
4,522
3,975
66,949
39,344
194,907
88,263
11,458
85,995
60,487
29,559
81,822
7,941
28,181
8,720
50,828
251,389
21,850
4,744
36,539
47,412
16,255
44,533
5,462
337
28,354
803
2,245,195
......
2,513,852
2,513,852
2,686,523
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
157
032
193
142
1115
088
053
048
016
564
394
023
026
459
163
103
136
119
261
042
152
208
246
250
131
184
040
111
017
015
249
146
726
329
043
320
225
110
305
030
105
032
189
936
081
018
136
176
061
166
020
001
106
003
100.00
115
12350501605
Table 812. STaTe adminiSTraTive maTcHing granTS For THe SuPPlemenTal nuTriTion aSSiSTance Program (Food STamPS) (10.561)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
33,251
10,715
42,740
25,852
448,917
34,108
27,227
9,461
14,401
83,684
68,459
13,270
10,918
107,214
39,528
21,112
16,989
37,837
66,561
11,541
38,587
44,864
114,001
51,694
27,590
45,705
8,098
13,663
13,764
6,384
92,424
26,436
326,196
74,889
7,154
113,491
38,006
48,698
147,521
7,545
17,798
8,117
48,425
166,916
23,267
8,431
84,068
51,390
15,966
37,965
4,216
1,899
3,839
-223,088
34,708
10,597
44,708
26,419
445,060
34,212
27,597
9,531
14,457
91,088
71,385
13,386
11,093
109,748
41,287
21,751
17,285
39,456
67,055
12,078
39,395
46,727
116,467
51,393
28,578
47,454
8,167
13,662
14,183
6,527
91,642
26,683
327,687
77,060
7,125
115,305
38,414
49,908
148,352
7,770
20,075
8,113
51,308
175,310
23,193
8,460
83,941
53,136
16,668
39,039
4,167
1,924
3,766
34,708
10,597
44,708
26,419
445,060
34,212
27,597
9,531
14,457
91,088
71,385
13,386
11,093
109,748
41,287
21,751
17,285
39,456
67,055
12,078
39,395
46,727
116,467
51,393
28,578
47,454
8,167
13,662
14,183
6,527
91,642
26,683
327,687
77,060
7,125
115,305
38,414
49,908
148,352
7,770
20,075
8,113
51,308
175,310
23,193
8,460
83,941
53,136
16,668
39,039
4,167
1,924
3,766
35,786
10,938
46,096
27,252
459,383
35,304
28,472
9,835
14,918
93,844
73,605
13,811
11,444
113,205
42,570
22,433
17,832
40,684
69,191
12,453
40,638
48,182
120,140
53,044
29,471
48,934
8,427
14,099
14,628
6,733
94,592
27,532
338,141
79,479
7,354
118,955
39,634
51,479
153,080
8,014
20,668
8,372
52,888
180,739
23,937
8,730
86,630
54,799
17,186
40,265
4,302
1,984
3,888
Total
2,619,701
......
2,894,500
2,894,500
2,986,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
120
037
154
091
1538
118
095
033
050
314
246
046
038
379
143
075
060
136
232
042
136
161
402
178
099
164
028
047
049
023
317
092
1132
266
025
398
133
172
513
027
069
028
177
605
080
029
290
184
058
135
014
007
013
100.00
116
department of education, office of elementary and Secondary education
91090001501
Table 813. TiTle i granTS To locaTional agencieS (84.010)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
215,192
38,846
274,777
144,268
1,698,808
135,392
115,562
38,380
47,295
656,255
446,271
44,337
46,663
593,980
247,109
72,717
95,359
208,551
294,843
51,525
192,239
233,354
527,255
126,936
187,346
225,205
43,555
60,246
80,755
38,198
286,765
113,156
1,226,786
358,570
33,742
511,797
148,406
139,987
565,518
52,978
205,597
41,539
239,072
1,299,356
60,019
32,862
226,096
191,853
99,607
199,030
31,516
9,525
11,478
3,460
510,525
12,799
96,688
8,930
401,581
67,768
485,405
275,329
2,761,201
271,300
184,007
73,523
86,607
1,165,435
847,717
76,524
85,165
1,055,489
430,003
129,950
175,231
381,286
487,177
90,510
327,324
408,316
946,855
235,648
331,574
382,636
80,400
115,636
162,968
70,812
469,835
198,928
2,151,450
629,235
63,034
921,056
271,710
232,875
979,518
88,145
353,421
78,397
470,397
2,317,240
118,665
59,359
413,645
334,778
154,850
362,781
60,020
16,864
20,795
6,126
920,798
22,660
173,440
9,000
401,581
67,768
485,405
275,329
2,761,201
271,300
184,007
73,523
86,607
1,165,435
847,717
76,524
85,165
1,055,489
430,003
129,950
175,231
381,286
487,177
90,510
327,324
408,316
946,855
235,648
331,574
382,636
80,400
115,636
162,968
70,812
469,835
198,928
2,151,450
629,235
63,034
921,056
271,710
232,875
979,518
88,145
353,421
78,397
470,397
2,317,240
118,665
59,359
413,645
334,778
154,850
362,781
60,020
16,864
20,795
6,126
920,798
22,660
173,440
9,000
215,426
34,085
260,544
148,454
1,457,618
142,308
99,142
36,442
44,785
604,252
447,974
38,746
44,381
561,056
230,529
68,742
92,851
204,204
278,096
47,384
170,076
217,097
501,442
123,700
179,893
207,406
41,302
60,075
83,050
35,154
252,000
106,927
1,133,339
334,043
31,737
490,833
145,923
123,494
519,729
46,752
188,737
39,681
250,289
1,232,115
60,737
29,984
219,873
176,300
83,789
190,573
30,073
8,816
10,299
3,202
495,377
11,846
90,722
9,000
Total
13,898,875
......
24,492,401
24,492,401
12,992,401
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
166
026
201
114
1123
110
076
028
034
465
345
030
034
432
178
053
072
157
214
036
131
167
386
095
139
160
032
046
064
027
194
082
873
257
024
378
112
095
400
036
145
031
193
949
047
023
169
136
065
147
023
007
008
002
382
009
070
100.00
117
91100001501
Table 814. imProving TeacHer QualiTy STaTe granTS (84.367)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
47,018
13,987
48,635
28,693
332,855
32,975
26,680
13,987
13,987
133,957
79,402
13,987
13,987
117,680
50,369
22,318
22,706
45,108
65,226
13,987
41,357
51,794
112,110
38,483
42,782
50,978
13,987
14,264
15,524
13,987
65,311
23,044
227,484
68,094
13,987
107,784
33,970
28,900
115,223
13,987
37,979
13,987
51,217
247,416
19,075
13,987
52,503
48,000
23,713
46,372
13,987
3,481
5,135
1,639
92,534
4,348
14,603
14,676
47,445
13,986
49,231
29,160
327,274
33,871
26,587
13,986
13,986
132,654
80,698
13,986
13,986
118,637
50,655
22,468
22,859
45,504
63,944
13,986
41,195
51,863
112,630
38,915
42,815
50,725
13,986
14,263
15,809
13,986
64,978
22,956
227,464
67,862
13,986
108,359
34,232
28,644
115,070
13,986
37,791
13,986
52,219
247,764
19,403
13,986
52,711
48,045
23,382
46,890
13,986
3,498
5,155
1,646
92,389
4,365
14,665
27,239
47,445
13,986
49,231
29,160
327,274
33,871
26,587
13,986
13,986
132,654
80,698
13,986
13,986
118,637
50,655
22,468
22,859
45,504
63,944
13,986
41,195
51,863
112,630
38,915
42,815
50,725
13,986
14,263
15,809
13,986
64,978
22,956
227,464
67,862
13,986
108,359
34,232
28,644
115,070
13,986
37,791
13,986
52,219
247,764
19,403
13,986
52,711
48,045
23,382
46,890
13,986
3,498
5,155
1,646
92,389
4,365
14,665
27,239
47,663
14,049
49,508
29,299
328,739
34,039
26,686
14,049
14,049
133,267
81,119
14,049
14,049
119,125
50,892
22,560
22,952
45,692
64,174
14,049
41,354
52,058
113,045
39,067
42,986
50,947
14,049
14,326
15,901
14,049
65,232
23,053
228,224
68,228
14,049
108,802
34,390
28,774
115,490
14,049
37,977
14,049
52,484
248,974
19,496
14,049
52,948
48,258
23,454
47,072
14,049
3,498
5,155
1,646
92,793
4,365
14,665
14,739
2,935,248
2,947,749
2,947,749
2,947,749
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
163
048
169
100
1121
116
091
048
048
454
277
048
048
406
174
077
078
156
219
048
141
177
385
133
147
174
048
049
054
048
222
079
778
233
048
371
117
098
394
048
129
048
179
849
066
048
181
165
080
160
048
012
018
006
316
015
050
100.00
118
91190901501
Table 815. educaTion STaTe granTS, STaTe FiScal STabilizaTion Fund (84.394)

State or Territory
FY 2008
Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage
of distributed
total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
596,356
93,043
831,869
363,053
4,875,499
621,878
443,252
110,320
73,110
2,208,839
1,260,799
157,202
201,700
1,681,131
823,661
386,374
367,423
532,798
579,592
158,250
719,677
813,303
1,302,369
667,888
392,068
753,172
121,628
233,956
324,405
164,244
1,088,336
260,436
2,468,558
1,161,932
85,644
1,463,710
472,821
466,462
1,558,798
134,912
567,741
104,293
775,135
3,250,272
392,582
77,150
983,866
819,947
217,971
717,337
67,620
1
1
1
529,742
1 219,224
596,356
93,043
831,869
363,053
4,875,499
621,878
443,252
110,320
73,110
2,208,839
1,260,799
157,202
201,700
1,681,131
823,661
386,374
367,423
532,798
579,592
158,250
719,677
813,303
1,302,369
667,888
392,068
753,172
121,628
233,956
324,405
164,244
1,088,336
260,436
2,468,558
1,161,932
85,644
1,463,710
472,821
466,462
1,558,798
134,912
567,741
104,293
775,135
3,250,272
392,582
77,150
983,866
819,947
217,971
717,337
67,620
529,742
219,224
Total
......
......
39,743,348
39,743,348
......
......
A maximum of $219,224,000 is available for distribution among the Outlying Areas
119
91190901501
Table 816. governmenT ServiceS, STaTe FiScal STabilizaTion Fund (84.397)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
132,686
20,702
185,086
80,777
1,084,769
138,364
98,621
24,546
16,267
491,453
280,520
34,976
44,877
374,041
183,260
85,966
81,749
118,544
128,956
35,210
160,124
180,955
289,769
148,601
87,233
167,576
27,062
52,054
72,178
36,543
242,148
57,946
549,239
258,523
19,055
325,667
105,200
103,785
346,823
30,017
126,319
23,204
172,463
723,166
87,347
17,165
218,904
182,433
48,497
159,603
15,045
1
1
1
117,864
1 48,776
132,686
20,702
185,086
80,777
1,084,769
138,364
98,621
24,546
16,267
491,453
280,520
34,976
44,877
374,041
183,260
85,966
81,749
118,544
128,956
35,210
160,124
180,955
289,769
148,601
87,233
167,576
27,062
52,054
72,178
36,543
242,148
57,946
549,239
258,523
19,055
325,667
105,200
103,785
346,823
30,017
126,319
23,204
172,463
723,166
87,347
17,165
218,904
182,433
48,497
159,603
15,045
117,864
48,776
Total
......
......
8,842,652
8,842,652
......
......
A maximum of $48,776,000 is available for distribution among the Outlying Areas
120
department of education, office of Special education and rehabilitative Services
91030101506
Table 817. vocaTional reHabiliTaTion STaTe granTS (84.126)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
57,286
9,475
57,950
36,246
276,152
36,084
20,156
9,477
12,641
156,443
91,919
11,053
15,904
105,462
66,660
32,052
26,929
51,743
43,078
15,107
39,640
45,813
97,537
43,124
41,647
62,159
11,071
17,801
16,280
10,755
55,267
22,734
148,275
92,813
9,464
118,728
41,092
35,383
123,532
10,428
50,841
9,479
65,576
218,217
28,030
9,476
63,382
51,125
25,313
55,648
9,058
929
2,052
1,160
71,531
1,974
34,892
67,341
11,595
74,420
43,622
341,271
45,070
23,783
11,595
14,869
191,023
115,176
13,631
19,953
128,528
81,121
37,789
32,904
62,788
67,839
17,980
46,058
53,734
118,078
52,222
49,684
75,420
13,246
21,077
23,240
12,959
65,923
27,921
176,933
115,179
11,595
145,210
49,682
43,661
145,176
11,989
62,640
11,595
80,521
272,299
35,795
11,595
75,864
63,615
30,225
67,090
11,595
1,242
3,547
1,497
85,723
2,394
36,113
67,341
11,595
74,420
43,622
341,271
45,070
23,783
11,595
14,869
191,023
115,176
13,631
19,953
128,528
81,121
37,789
32,904
62,788
67,839
17,980
46,058
53,734
118,078
52,222
49,684
75,420
13,246
21,077
23,240
12,959
65,923
27,921
176,933
115,179
11,595
145,210
49,682
43,661
145,176
11,989
62,640
11,595
80,521
272,299
35,795
11,595
75,864
63,615
30,225
67,090
11,595
1,242
3,547
1,497
85,723
2,394
36,113
59,738
10,157
64,455
38,232
290,100
39,946
20,994
10,157
13,344
160,629
103,495
11,438
17,306
112,928
74,034
33,868
29,184
56,093
57,193
16,128
40,346
48,070
109,180
47,213
43,509
67,930
11,445
19,065
19,235
11,649
57,884
24,461
149,176
102,902
10,157
131,448
42,125
39,066
128,870
10,506
55,600
10,157
72,499
232,470
31,668
10,157
66,138
54,426
26,576
60,799
10,157
1,082
3,117
1,299
75,345
2,101
37,449
2,874,043
......
3,514,635
3,514,635
3,084,696
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
194
033
209
124
940
129
068
033
043
521
336
037
056
366
240
110
095
182
185
052
131
156
354
153
141
220
037
062
062
038
188
079
484
334
033
426
137
127
418
034
180
033
235
754
103
033
214
176
086
197
033
004
010
004
244
007
121
100.00
121
department of education, office of Special education and rehabilitative Services
91030001501
Table 818. idea ParT b: granTS To STaTeS & granTS To STaTeS recovery acT (84.323)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
172,827
34,370
172,909
106,603
1,165,973
144,091
126,364
31,680
15,929
598,437
303,971
37,941
51,586
481,311
243,042
116,028
101,561
150,013
179,912
52,005
190,291
269,787
380,700
180,405
113,101
215,886
35,120
70,966
65,026
45,103
343,528
86,618
721,466
304,602
25,724
415,983
140,574
122,570
405,950
41,561
166,466
30,644
221,642
916,138
102,249
24,803
267,684
210,357
72,178
197,854
26,021
6,297
13,962
4,785
105,695
8,874
6,579
88,767
15,000
362,616
69,185
362,787
223,669
2,446,375
302,323
265,129
66,470
33,421
1,255,606
637,774
79,606
108,236
1,009,858
509,937
243,443
213,089
314,747
376,910
107,553
399,257
562,708
798,763
378,516
237,301
452,959
73,687
148,897
136,433
94,632
719,970
181,737
1,513,738
639,099
53,973
872,792
294,944
257,169
851,741
87,201
349,270
64,296
465,036
1,922,188
214,532
52,040
561,639
441,359
151,439
415,125
53,523
6,527
14,473
4,960
221,764
9,199
6,579
92,012
15,000
362,616
69,185
362,787
223,669
2,446,375
302,323
265,129
66,470
33,421
1,255,606
637,774
79,606
108,236
1,009,858
509,937
243,443
213,089
314,747
376,910
107,553
399,257
562,708
798,763
378,516
237,301
452,959
73,687
148,897
136,433
94,632
719,970
181,737
1,513,738
639,099
53,973
872,792
294,944
257,169
851,741
87,201
349,270
64,296
465,036
1,922,188
214,532
52,040
561,639
441,359
151,439
415,125
53,523
6,527
14,473
4,960
221,764
9,199
6,579
92,012
15,000
180,751
36,229
184,311
111,491
1,219,431
153,593
132,157
33,770
16,979
628,343
324,016
39,681
54,988
503,378
256,402
121,347
106,217
157,178
188,160
54,389
199,016
282,156
398,155
188,677
119,465
225,784
36,979
74,220
69,314
47,171
359,278
90,589
754,544
324,689
27,421
435,056
147,019
128,190
424,562
43,466
176,030
32,665
235,422
976,551
108,991
26,439
280,224
220,002
75,487
206,925
27,737
6,297
13,962
4,785
112,665
8,874
6,579
92,012
15,000
Total 1
1 In addition to CFDA 84323, this table also reflects funds in CFDA 84396
10,947,512
......
22,805,211
22,805,211
11,505,211
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
157
032
160
097
1061
134
115
029
015
547
282
035
048
438
223
106
092
137
164
047
173
246
347
164
104
197
032
065
060
041
313
079
657
283
024
379
128
112
369
038
153
028
205
850
095
023
244
191
066
180
024
005
012
004
098
008
006
080
100.00
122
department of energy, energy Programs
89032101272
Table 819. STaTe energy Program (81.041)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Washington HQ
NREL
ORNL
531
258
489
416
2,223
530
506
231
219
1,168
753
241
269
1,435
823
485
434
556
642
308
631
774
1,211
734
391
676
252
332
287
288
989
308
1,987
772
241
1,349
481
441
1,373
267
476
233
647
1,938
337
233
760
607
376
761
223
173
166
424
179
10,261
Previous
authority
New authority
28,158
14,292
28,060
20,009
114,616
25,002
19,660
12,276
11,166
63,860
41,770
13,132
14,472
51,788
34,930
20,639
19,463
26,670
36,284
13,878
26,362
28,060
41,972
27,659
20,483
29,204
13,106
15,696
17,549
13,126
37,590
16,126
63,156
38,548
12,462
49,094
23,697
21,410
50,911
12,175
25,608
12,020
31,708
110,687
17,918
11,168
35,560
30,901
16,653
28,336
12,622
9,388
9,667
9,438
18,859
10,459
35,500
2,500
2,500
Total
28,158
14,292
28,060
20,009
114,616
25,002
19,660
12,276
11,166
63,860
41,770
13,132
14,472
51,788
34,930
20,639
19,463
26,670
36,284
13,878
26,362
28,060
41,972
27,659
20,483
29,204
13,106
15,696
17,549
13,126
37,590
16,126
63,156
38,548
12,462
49,094
23,697
21,410
50,911
12,175
25,608
12,020
31,708
110,687
17,918
11,168
35,560
30,901
16,653
28,336
12,622
9,388
9,667
9,438
18,859
10,459
35,500
2,500
2,500
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
28,464
14,461
28,400
20,190
115,810
25,212
19,742
12,412
11,280
64,586
42,256
13,282
14,635
51,898
35,148
20,768
19,610
26,908
36,723
13,986
26,519
28,126
42,020
27,748
20,703
29,398
13,244
15,833
17,781
13,230
37,722
16,300
63,059
38,922
12,592
49,216
23,923
21,606
51,060
12,273
25,893
12,144
32,004
112,064
18,113
11,268
35,856
31,217
16,773
28,422
12,776
9,502
9,782
9,554
18,996
10,592
47,000
3,000
3,000
1 44,095
2 1,600,000 2 1,600,000 2 1,625,000
Total
1 Actual obligations for FY 2008 and estimated obligations from previous authority for FY 2009 were not available - values for both are estimated
2 The timeline for obligations are illustrative estimates - the timeline for actual obligations will depend on state compliance with program milestones and requirements
3 Excludes undistributed obligations.
175
089
175
124
713
155
121
076
069
397
260
082
090
319
216
128
121
166
226
086
163
173
259
171
127
181
081
097
109
081
232
100
388
240
077
303
147
133
314
076
159
075
197
690
111
069
221
192
103
175
079
058
060
059
117
065
289
018
018
3
100.00
123
89032101272
Table 820. weaTHerizaTion aSSiSTance For low-income PerSonS (81.042)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
2,396
1,673
1,353
2,061
6,266
5,454
2,495
572
646
1,948
2,915
204
1,964
13,785
6,521
4,966
2,519
4,499
1,723
3,054
2,640
6,518
15,119
9,809
1,641
5,975
2,508
2,483
832
1,502
5,079
1,901
20,076
4,139
2,485
13,677
2,580
2,808
14,638
1,151
1,767
1,908
4,162
5,549
2,068
1,272
3,998
4,519
3,197
8,529
1,169
4,509
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
HQ Other Grants
Washington HQ T&TA
NREL T&TA
ORNL T&TA
Total
1
Previous
authority
227,222
New authority
Total
41,359
11,625
32,591
28,089
107,067
48,888
37,470
8,050
5,044
97,877
70,673
2,415
18,537
145,333
78,266
48,996
33,223
43,098
28,952
25,893
36,001
72,834
147,649
81,942
28,455
75,640
17,032
25,194
21,189
14,143
69,536
16,652
233,997
75,744
16,312
158,565
35,602
23,819
151,798
12,060
33,688
15,264
58,127
183,282
22,767
10,442
55,093
37,017
23,610
85,717
6,816
557
759
595
24,886
908
5,012
9,000
144,855
1,000
3,000
2
2,950,000
FY 2010
(estimated)
41,359
11,625
32,591
28,089
107,067
48,888
37,470
8,050
5,044
97,877
70,673
2,415
18,537
145,333
78,266
48,996
33,223
43,098
28,952
25,893
36,001
72,834
147,649
81,942
28,455
75,640
17,032
25,194
21,189
14,143
69,536
16,652
233,997
75,744
16,312
158,565
35,602
23,819
151,798
12,060
33,688
15,264
58,127
183,282
22,767
10,442
55,093
37,017
23,610
85,717
6,816
557
759
595
24,886
908
5,012
9,000
144,855
1,000
3,000
2
2,950,000
38,206
10,694
29,805
26,042
98,943
45,051
34,568
7,422
4,672
89,823
65,177
2,218
17,075
134,585
72,230
45,224
30,655
39,809
26,972
23,927
33,272
67,343
136,332
75,474
26,289
69,847
15,704
23,226
19,445
13,064
64,316
15,269
216,739
69,963
15,043
146,611
32,938
21,977
140,549
11,152
31,144
14,093
53,577
168,776
20,952
9,654
50,927
34,152
21,887
79,010
6,255
539
744
578
25,233
896
5,012
138,145
280
500
2
2,720,000
Actual obligations for FY 2008 and estimated obligations from previous authority for FY 2009 were not available - values for both are estimated
timeline for obligations are illustrative estimates - the timeline for actual obligations will depend on state compliance with program milestones and requirements
2 The
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
140
039
110
096
364
166
127
027
017
330
240
008
063
495
266
166
113
146
099
088
122
248
501
277
097
257
058
085
071
048
236
056
797
257
055
539
121
081
517
041
115
052
197
620
077
035
187
126
080
290
023
002
003
002
093
003
018
508
001
002
3
100.00
124
89032101272
Table 821. energy eFFiciency and conServaTion block granT (81.043)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
......
......
1 The
New authority
Total
15,789
6,985
31,909
10,059
175,829
21,309
12,261
7,959
4,797
84,322
33,594
7,534
8,478
56,088
21,190
10,552
11,823
12,691
16,812
5,641
26,148
21,115
38,301
18,680
8,487
21,890
6,986
9,405
15,992
6,261
37,734
10,304
87,561
29,025
6,405
42,092
13,586
16,751
51,254
7,261
15,725
6,584
21,122
104,380
13,889
5,162
30,360
28,050
7,002
18,579
6,010
4,797
4,797
4,797
16,988
4,797
27,418
248,687
1
1,600,000
FY 2010
(estimated)
15,789
6,985
31,909
10,059
175,829
21,309
12,261
7,959
4,797
84,322
33,594
7,534
8,478
56,088
21,190
10,552
11,823
12,691
16,812
5,641
26,148
21,115
38,301
18,680
8,487
21,890
6,986
9,405
15,992
6,261
37,734
10,304
87,561
29,025
6,405
42,092
13,586
16,751
51,254
7,261
15,725
6,584
21,122
104,380
13,889
5,162
30,360
28,050
7,002
18,579
6,010
4,797
4,797
4,797
16,988
4,797
27,418
248,687
1
1,600,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
15,789
6,985
31,909
10,059
175,829
21,309
12,261
7,959
4,797
84,322
33,594
7,534
8,478
56,088
21,190
10,552
11,823
12,691
16,812
5,641
26,148
21,115
38,301
18,680
8,487
21,890
6,986
9,405
15,992
6,261
37,734
10,304
87,561
29,025
6,405
42,092
13,586
16,751
51,254
7,261
15,725
6,584
21,122
104,380
13,889
5,162
30,360
28,050
7,002
18,579
6,010
4,797
4,797
4,797
16,988
4,797
27,418
248,687
1
1,600,000
timeline for obligations are illustrative estimates - the timeline for actual obligations will depend on state and local compliance with program milestones and requirements
099
044
199
063
1099
133
077
050
030
527
210
047
053
351
132
066
074
079
105
035
163
132
239
117
053
137
044
059
100
039
236
064
547
181
040
263
085
105
320
045
098
041
132
652
087
032
190
175
044
116
038
030
030
030
106
030
171
1554
2
100.00
125
department of Health and Human Services, centers for medicare and medicaid Services
75051501551
Table 822. cHildrenS HealTH inSurance Program (93.767)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
72,328
11,187
142,957
47,544
789,164
71,545
38,810
12,760
12,057
301,724
167,924
15,243
23,803
208,344
97,385
33,177
36,635
68,237
84,083
15,450
72,403
73,335
147,082
48,613
60,989
77,618
15,922
21,377
51,072
10,657
105,519
52,045
328,680
136,117
7,889
157,858
70,828
60,116
168,758
13,958
71,017
10,504
99,842
556,191
41,292
5,637
90,339
79,883
25,666
69,563
6,373
630
1,838
578
48,090
1,365
1,007,052
140,301
24,565
171,080
133,750
1,552,910
100,696
45,645
15,096
14,180
356,091
302,054
20,887
44,515
344,562
137,585
65,255
57,164
126,014
207,403
39,272
194,774
321,659
221,124
83,960
192,939
158,829
32,989
41,955
61,368
14,844
505,395
280,720
433,473
241,660
15,822
285,275
151,400
100,198
310,309
69,525
106,863
20,656
156,629
867,350
65,264
9,490
175,860
94,284
43,263
204,276
11,327
1,886
3,777
1,789
112,003
2,289
1,067,754
140,301
24,565
171,080
133,750
1,552,910
100,696
45,645
15,096
14,180
356,091
302,054
20,887
44,515
344,562
137,585
65,255
57,164
126,014
207,403
39,272
194,774
321,659
221,124
83,960
192,939
158,829
32,989
41,955
61,368
14,844
505,395
280,720
433,473
241,660
15,822
285,275
151,400
100,198
310,309
69,525
106,863
20,656
156,629
867,350
65,264
9,490
175,860
94,284
43,263
204,276
11,327
1,886
3,777
1,789
112,003
2,289
1,067,754
Total
6,047,052
......
10,562,000
10,562,000
Estimates will be increased according to growth factors in the Childrens Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (PL 1113)
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
140,301
24,565
171,080
133,750
1,552,910
100,696
45,645
15,096
14,180
356,091
302,054
20,887
44,515
344,562
137,585
65,255
57,164
126,014
207,403
39,272
194,774
321,659
221,124
83,960
192,939
158,829
32,989
41,955
61,368
14,844
505,395
280,720
433,473
241,660
15,822
285,275
151,400
100,198
310,309
69,525
106,863
20,656
156,629
867,350
65,264
9,490
175,860
94,284
43,263
204,276
11,327
1,886
3,777
1,789
112,003
2,289
3,025,754
1
12,520,000
148
026
180
141
1636
106
048
016
015
375
318
022
047
363
145
069
060
133
218
041
205
339
233
088
203
167
035
044
065
016
532
296
457
255
017
300
159
106
327
073
113
022
165
914
069
010
185
099
046
215
012
002
004
002
118
002
100.00
126
department of Health and Human Services, centers for medicare and medicaid Services
75051201551
Table 823. granTS To STaTeS For medicaid (93.778)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Survey & Certification
Fraud Control Units
Vaccines for Children
Medicare Part B Transfer
Incurred but not Reported
VFC Collection
Adjustments
2,933,298
693,060
5,241,442
2,608,079
22,901,995
1,714,405
2,333,440
597,728
1,099,879
8,458,589
5,235,411
722,263
885,347
6,214,988
4,092,440
1,771,595
1,464,864
3,581,586
4,574,560
1,518,266
3,081,523
6,313,281
6,088,555
3,763,920
3,161,235
4,809,741
618,669
1,012,736
745,911
690,611
5,057,379
2,319,457
24,442,430
6,758,759
401,451
8,280,589
2,543,972
2,141,336
9,393,774
996,847
3,078,094
457,444
4,984,871
14,979,886
1,125,224
660,848
2,889,595
3,688,210
1,785,678
3,288,507
274,064
8,620
12,748
4,779
280,612
15,006
207,370
186,000
2,719,702
396,612
2,405,387
105
-700,036
3,012,424
798,022
6,409,014
2,990,829
28,390,714
2,215,648
3,293,162
748,323
1,298,150
10,837,964
5,975,139
913,753
1,077,845
6,990,705
4,468,291
2,121,295
1,637,856
3,997,622
5,179,171
1,782,635
3,943,487
7,736,916
7,535,642
4,674,179
3,385,595
5,509,576
663,198
1,165,013
936,238
794,644
5,882,319
2,578,072
31,166,299
7,946,996
433,946
9,973,509
2,962,718
2,710,755
11,402,051
1,209,306
3,441,966
506,011
5,319,105
16,267,411
1,317,364
787,399
3,105,271
4,976,351
2,020,068
3,905,755
305,629
12,017
18,503
6,600
406,464
18,901
226,791
195,300
3,377,911
475,000
3,747,000
9,425,225
3,012,424
798,022
6,409,014
2,990,829
28,390,714
2,215,648
3,293,162
748,323
1,298,150
10,837,964
5,975,139
913,753
1,077,845
6,990,705
4,468,291
2,121,295
1,637,856
3,997,622
5,179,171
1,782,635
3,943,487
7,736,916
7,535,642
4,674,179
3,385,595
5,509,576
663,198
1,165,013
936,238
794,644
5,882,319
2,578,072
31,166,299
7,946,996
433,946
9,973,509
2,962,718
2,710,755
11,402,051
1,209,306
3,441,966
506,011
5,319,105
16,267,411
1,317,364
787,399
3,105,271
4,976,351
2,020,068
3,905,755
305,629
12,017
18,503
6,600
406,464
18,901
226,791
195,300
3,377,911
475,000
3,747,000
9,425,225
3,170,548
848,087
6,878,380
3,199,082
29,368,072
2,241,806
3,239,545
929,881
1,316,685
10,564,602
6,162,106
867,644
1,175,495
7,368,001
4,884,752
2,282,465
1,631,522
4,148,728
5,562,554
1,751,560
4,144,026
7,275,508
7,728,651
5,040,801
3,660,881
6,057,919
675,511
1,232,644
1,007,799
849,990
6,210,589
2,741,928
32,190,544
8,450,197
458,823
10,582,491
2,987,294
2,783,514
11,875,203
1,237,689
3,443,670
505,998
5,690,759
16,940,954
1,430,564
806,697
3,340,665
5,299,604
2,117,311
4,088,361
341,498
12,017
18,503
6,600
406,464
18,901
230,646
205,065
3,323,770
562,500
2,899,000
26,751,939
Total
214,014,737
......
266,611,063
266,611,063
293,225,003
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
108
029
235
109
1002
076
110
032
045
360
210
030
040
251
167
078
056
141
190
060
141
248
264
172
125
207
023
042
034
029
212
094
1098
288
016
361
102
095
405
042
117
017
194
578
049
028
114
181
072
139
012
*
001
*
014
001
008
007
113
019
099
912
1
100.00
127
department of Health and Human Services, administration for children and Families
75155201609
Table 824. TemPorary aSSiSTance For needy FamilieS (TanF) - Family aSSiSTance granTS (93.558)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Tribal New Program
Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood
Contingency Fund
ARRA Supplemental Grants
ARRA Emergency Contingency Fund for State TANF programs
Matching Grants to territories
104,408
53,620
225,308
62,951
3,663,130
149,626
266,788
30,824
92,595
622,746
368,025
98,905
33,911
585,057
206,799
130,994
101,931
181,270
180,999
78,121
229,098
459,371
775,353
263,434
95,803
217,052
39,172
57,026
47,641
38,521
404,035
117,131
2,442,931
338,350
26,400
727,968
145,860
166,799
719,499
95,022
99,968
21,280
213,089
538,965
84,314
47,353
158,285
380,954
110,176
314,499
18,501
2,599
71,562
2,847
174,273
7,558
149,949
104,408
53,309
224,158
62,951
3,659,873
149,626
266,788
32,291
92,610
622,746
368,025
98,905
33,911
585,057
206,799
131,030
101,931
181,288
180,999
78,121
229,098
459,371
775,353
263,434
95,803
217,052
39,172
57,514
47,641
38,521
404,035
117,131
2,442,931
338,350
26,400
727,968
145,281
166,799
719,499
95,022
99,968
21,280
213,089
538,965
84,314
47,353
158,285
380,740
110,176
314,499
18,501
3,465
71,563
2,847
179,746
7,633
150,000
15,000
104,408
53,309
224,158
62,951
3,659,873
149,626
266,788
32,291
92,610
622,746
368,025
98,905
33,911
585,057
206,799
131,030
101,931
181,288
180,999
78,121
229,098
459,371
775,353
263,434
95,803
217,052
39,172
57,514
47,641
38,521
404,035
117,131
2,442,931
338,350
26,400
727,968
145,281
166,799
719,499
95,022
99,968
21,280
213,089
538,965
84,314
47,353
158,285
380,740
110,176
314,499
18,501
3,465
71,563
2,847
179,746
7,633
150,000
15,000
104,408
53,309
224,158
62,951
3,659,873
149,626
266,788
32,291
92,610
622,746
368,025
98,905
33,911
585,057
206,799
131,030
101,931
181,288
180,999
78,121
229,098
459,371
775,353
263,434
95,803
217,052
39,172
57,514
47,641
38,521
404,035
117,131
2,442,931
338,350
26,400
727,968
145,281
166,799
719,499
95,022
99,968
21,280
213,089
538,965
84,314
47,353
158,285
380,740
110,176
314,499
18,501
3,465
71,563
2,847
179,746
7,633
150,000
15,000
Total
17,040,646
......
17,058,625
17,058,625
17,058,625
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
061
031
131
037
2145
088
156
019
054
365
216
058
020
343
121
077
060
106
106
046
134
269
455
154
056
127
023
034
028
023
237
069
1432
198
015
427
085
098
422
056
059
012
125
316
049
028
093
223
065
184
011
002
042
002
105
004
088
009
1
100.00
128
75150101609
Table 825. cHild SuPPorT enForcemenT - Federal SHare oF STaTe and local adminiSTraTive coSTS and incenTiveS (93.563)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
49,141
17,811
65,681
38,196
1,038,146
59,841
57,561
19,191
17,171
205,118
87,358
11,701
34,881
129,407
59,302
39,637
60,395
40,671
66,663
10,368
96,140
100,590
145,731
102,146
46,345
42,333
11,793
31,785
34,784
29,537
152,869
74,914
270,719
78,388
35,508
184,648
45,955
74,656
135,746
5,195
50,903
45,754
60,096
167,964
46,509
48,085
57,383
78,109
21,618
65,280
8,759
8,170
40,899
12,609
21,612
48,345
17,522
64,616
37,577
1,021,318
58,872
56,628
18,880
16,893
201,794
85,942
11,511
34,316
127,310
58,341
38,995
59,416
40,012
65,582
10,200
94,582
98,959
143,369
100,490
45,594
41,647
11,602
31,270
34,220
29,058
150,392
73,699
266,331
77,118
34,933
181,656
45,211
73,446
133,546
5,111
50,078
45,012
59,122
165,241
45,755
47,306
56,453
76,843
21,268
64,222
8,617
8,038
40,236
12,404
35,000
48,345
17,522
64,616
37,577
1,021,318
58,872
56,628
18,880
16,893
201,794
85,942
11,511
34,316
127,310
58,341
38,995
59,416
40,012
65,582
10,200
94,582
98,959
143,369
100,490
45,594
41,647
11,602
31,270
34,220
29,058
150,392
73,699
266,331
77,118
34,933
181,656
45,211
73,446
133,546
5,111
50,078
45,012
59,122
165,241
45,755
47,306
56,453
76,843
21,268
64,222
8,617
8,038
40,236
12,404
35,000
50,049
18,140
66,895
38,902
1,057,333
60,948
58,625
19,546
17,489
208,910
88,972
11,917
35,526
131,799
60,398
40,370
61,511
41,423
67,895
10,560
97,917
102,449
148,425
104,034
47,201
43,116
12,011
32,373
35,427
30,083
155,695
76,298
275,723
79,837
36,164
188,061
46,805
76,036
138,255
5,291
51,844
46,599
61,207
171,068
47,368
48,974
58,444
79,552
22,018
66,487
8,921
8,321
41,655
12,842
34,000
Total
4,541,772
......
4,481,899
4,481,899
4,637,709
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
108
039
144
084
2280
131
126
042
038
450
192
026
077
284
130
087
133
089
146
023
211
221
320
224
102
093
026
070
076
065
336
165
595
172
078
406
101
164
298
011
112
100
132
369
102
106
126
172
047
143
019
018
090
028
073
100.00
129
75150201609
Table 826. low income Home energy aSSiSTance Program (93.568)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Discretionary Funds
Technical Assistance
Total
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
16,994
7,504
7,648
13,057
91,022
31,729
41,754
5,542
6,484
27,068
21,407
2,137
11,776
114,565
51,865
36,762
16,989
27,230
17,494
25,835
31,971
82,764
107,943
78,363
14,643
45,762
11,979
18,165
3,887
15,672
76,865
9,535
250,569
37,059
12,542
101,350
14,286
24,022
134,810
13,590
13,590
10,531
27,584
45,044
14,452
11,747
38,944
38,800
17,935
70,538
5,693
44
97
34
2,414
92
21,530
292
59,716
16,333
26,844
36,497
223,979
63,474
95,783
17,384
14,653
95,013
75,141
4,652
25,632
237,236
103,602
67,803
45,270
68,353
57,196
47,649
101,296
162,916
221,244
144,528
38,937
103,541
26,075
39,558
13,643
34,112
166,690
22,919
475,382
121,051
27,299
220,588
44,572
44,640
274,925
30,123
47,702
22,921
73,723
158,110
31,596
25,568
118,084
71,568
40,584
130,096
12,640
100
220
76
5,465
208
47,462
27,000
300
59,716
16,333
26,844
36,497
223,979
63,474
95,783
17,384
14,653
95,013
75,141
4,652
25,632
237,236
103,602
67,803
45,270
68,353
57,196
47,649
101,296
162,916
221,244
144,528
38,937
103,541
26,075
39,558
13,643
34,112
166,690
22,919
475,382
121,051
27,299
220,588
44,572
44,640
274,925
30,123
47,702
22,921
73,723
158,110
31,596
25,568
118,084
71,568
40,584
130,096
12,640
100
220
76
5,465
208
47,462
27,000
300
31,340
8,463
14,088
21,644
125,107
31,729
51,495
10,209
7,809
49,864
39,435
2,410
13,281
118,935
51,865
36,762
26,242
38,567
32,226
25,835
58,895
82,764
109,697
78,363
22,585
54,939
13,510
20,489
7,160
17,675
86,165
12,645
250,541
68,269
14,144
114,288
26,342
24,022
136,369
15,786
25,035
11,876
42,862
82,979
16,269
13,248
71,741
38,800
21,586
70,538
6,448
53
117
41
2,905
111
26,137
27,000
300
1,980,000
......
4,509,672
4,509,672
2,410,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
130
035
058
090
519
132
214
042
032
207
164
010
055
494
215
153
109
160
134
107
244
343
455
325
094
228
056
085
030
073
358
052
1040
283
059
474
109
100
566
066
104
049
178
344
068
055
298
161
090
293
027
*
*
*
012
*
108
112
001
1
100.00
130
75151501609
Table 827. cHild care and develoPmenT block granT (93.575)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Other
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
39,938
4,064
51,631
25,551
229,338
23,919
13,742
4,554
2,885
112,313
80,270
7,269
12,026
75,188
42,047
18,275
18,834
35,714
42,649
6,834
24,755
25,113
57,162
26,031
32,362
38,962
5,943
11,733
14,789
4,723
35,243
18,456
103,991
67,494
3,784
67,654
31,683
22,582
62,022
5,383
36,809
5,514
45,692
221,872
22,898
2,936
38,813
33,657
13,562
30,024
2,765
2,536
4,023
1,887
33,311
1,865
41,255
15,762
79,171
8,306
104,701
51,724
453,308
50,033
28,164
9,355
5,527
216,764
170,493
13,271
24,585
151,819
88,006
37,292
37,897
71,819
82,346
13,907
49,473
49,322
120,762
53,706
63,761
79,605
11,827
24,282
29,460
9,747
70,188
36,666
199,179
138,999
7,499
140,229
62,065
46,324
123,778
10,751
74,736
11,236
86,295
442,150
46,027
5,810
77,979
68,634
26,850
62,753
5,323
5,495
7,720
3,762
68,771
3,659
82,542
21,228
79,171
8,306
104,701
51,724
453,308
50,033
28,164
9,355
5,527
216,764
170,493
13,271
24,585
151,819
88,006
37,292
37,897
71,819
82,346
13,907
49,473
49,322
120,762
53,706
63,761
79,605
11,827
24,282
29,460
9,747
70,188
36,666
199,179
138,999
7,499
140,229
62,065
46,324
123,778
10,751
74,736
11,236
86,295
442,150
46,027
5,810
77,979
68,634
26,850
62,753
5,323
5,495
7,720
3,762
68,771
3,659
82,542
21,228
40,700
4,270
53,824
26,590
233,035
25,721
14,478
4,809
2,841
111,433
87,646
6,822
12,639
78,046
45,242
19,171
19,482
36,920
42,332
7,149
25,433
25,355
62,081
27,609
32,778
40,923
6,080
12,483
15,145
5,011
36,082
18,849
102,393
71,456
3,855
72,088
31,906
23,814
63,631
5,527
38,420
5,776
44,362
227,298
23,661
2,987
40,087
35,283
13,803
32,260
2,736
2,832
3,979
1,939
35,353
1,886
42,542
16,228
2,062,087
......
4,127,081
4,127,081
2,127,081
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
191
020
253
125
1096
121
068
023
013
524
412
032
059
367
213
090
092
174
199
034
120
119
292
130
154
192
029
059
071
024
170
089
481
336
018
339
150
112
299
026
181
027
209
1069
111
014
188
166
065
152
013
013
019
009
166
009
200
077
1
100.00
131
75155001609
Table 828. cHild care and develoPmenT Fund - mandaTory (93.596a)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
16,442
3,545
19,827
5,300
85,590
10,174
18,738
5,179
4,567
43,027
36,548
4,972
2,868
56,874
26,182
8,508
9,812
16,702
13,865
3,019
23,301
44,973
32,082
23,368
6,293
24,669
3,191
10,595
2,580
4,582
26,374
8,308
101,984
69,639
2,506
70,125
24,910
19,409
55,337
6,634
9,867
1,711
37,702
59,844
12,592
3,945
21,329
41,883
8,727
24,511
2,815
58,340
3,780
16,442
3,545
19,827
5,300
85,590
10,174
18,738
5,179
4,567
43,027
36,548
4,972
2,868
56,874
26,182
8,508
9,812
16,702
13,865
3,019
23,301
44,973
32,082
23,368
6,293
24,669
3,191
10,595
2,580
4,582
26,374
8,308
101,984
69,639
2,506
70,125
24,910
19,409
55,337
6,634
9,867
1,711
37,702
59,844
12,592
3,945
21,329
41,883
8,727
24,511
2,815
58,340
3,792
16,442
3,545
19,827
5,300
85,590
10,174
18,738
5,179
4,567
43,027
36,548
4,972
2,868
56,874
26,182
8,508
9,812
16,702
13,865
3,019
23,301
44,973
32,082
23,368
6,293
24,669
3,191
10,595
2,580
4,582
26,374
8,308
101,984
69,639
2,506
70,125
24,910
19,409
55,337
6,634
9,867
1,711
37,702
59,844
12,592
3,945
21,329
41,883
8,727
24,511
2,815
58,340
3,792
16,442
3,545
19,827
5,300
85,590
10,174
18,738
5,179
4,567
43,027
36,548
4,972
2,868
56,874
26,182
8,508
9,812
16,702
13,865
3,019
23,301
44,973
32,082
23,368
6,293
24,669
3,191
10,595
2,580
4,582
26,374
8,308
101,984
69,639
2,506
70,125
24,910
19,409
55,337
6,634
9,867
1,711
37,702
59,844
12,592
3,945
21,329
41,883
8,727
24,511
2,815
58,340
3,792
1,239,645
......
1,239,657
1,239,657
1,239,657
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
133
029
160
043
690
082
151
042
037
347
295
040
023
459
211
069
079
135
112
024
188
363
259
189
051
199
026
085
021
037
213
067
823
562
020
566
201
157
446
054
080
014
304
483
102
032
172
338
070
198
023
471
031
1
100.00
132
75155001609
Table 829. cHild care and develoPmenT Fund - maTcHing (93.596b)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1 FY 2008 includes reappropriated Matching funds from prior years (2006)
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
25,166
4,048
37,889
15,747
217,403
26,995
18,143
4,616
2,647
90,967
56,397
6,822
9,026
73,397
35,858
15,959
15,861
22,728
24,731
6,084
30,504
32,568
55,142
28,338
17,219
31,910
4,819
10,153
14,719
6,488
47,173
11,547
101,483
49,409
3,244
62,226
20,465
19,334
61,891
5,278
23,374
4,399
32,765
151,191
18,835
2,875
41,129
34,303
8,717
29,249
2,724
3,501
25,166
4,048
37,884
15,747
217,404
26,991
18,140
4,616
2,647
90,955
56,397
6,821
9,025
73,387
35,853
15,957
15,861
22,725
24,727
6,084
32,568
30,500
55,142
28,338
17,216
31,905
4,818
10,152
14,717
6,488
47,167
11,547
101,483
49,402
3,243
62,217
20,462
19,334
61,883
5,278
23,374
4,398
32,765
151,191
18,835
2,875
41,123
34,303
8,715
29,245
2,723
3,501
25,166
4,048
37,884
15,747
217,404
26,991
18,140
4,616
2,647
90,955
56,397
6,821
9,025
73,387
35,853
15,957
15,861
22,725
24,727
6,084
32,568
30,500
55,142
28,338
17,216
31,905
4,818
10,152
14,717
6,488
47,167
11,547
101,483
49,402
3,243
62,217
20,462
19,334
61,883
5,278
23,374
4,398
32,765
151,191
18,835
2,875
41,123
34,303
8,715
29,245
2,723
3,501
25,166
4,048
37,884
15,747
217,404
26,991
18,140
4,616
2,647
90,955
56,397
6,821
9,025
73,387
35,853
15,957
15,861
22,725
24,727
6,084
32,568
30,500
55,142
28,338
17,216
31,905
4,818
10,152
14,717
6,488
47,167
11,547
101,483
49,402
3,243
62,217
20,462
19,334
61,883
5,278
23,374
4,398
32,765
151,191
18,835
2,875
41,123
34,303
8,715
29,245
2,723
3,501
1,677,456
......
1,677,343
1,677,343
1,677,343
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
150
024
226
094
1296
161
108
028
016
542
336
041
054
438
214
095
095
135
147
036
194
182
329
169
103
190
029
061
088
039
281
069
605
295
019
371
122
115
369
031
139
026
195
901
112
017
245
205
052
174
016
021
2
100.00
133
75153601506
Table 830. Head STarT (93.600)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Migrant Program
Palau
Unallocated
Research/Evaluation
Program Support
Centers of Excellence
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
106,911
12,506
103,774
64,697
833,854
68,519
52,035
13,271
25,174
263,829
168,952
22,946
22,874
271,477
96,454
51,685
51,061
108,130
146,287
27,684
78,240
108,636
235,168
72,193
162,116
119,305
21,004
36,154
24,344
13,421
129,353
52,437
434,333
141,647
17,220
247,547
81,263
59,626
228,773
22,073
82,719
18,875
119,654
479,971
37,864
13,595
99,359
100,627
50,776
91,117
12,404
2,156
2,169
1,669
249,974
8,018
183,471
291,133
1,337
174,928
19,752
38,590
142,473
15,955
145,274
87,790
1,054,256
93,267
64,555
17,615
30,202
355,430
234,337
27,682
31,516
348,175
132,712
67,043
67,772
141,263
187,309
34,841
97,856
134,135
297,068
93,717
198,819
156,284
26,456
47,004
35,350
17,294
162,480
69,146
546,086
196,945
20,824
321,511
110,743
80,166
292,245
27,677
113,445
24,082
162,483
681,099
51,353
16,389
130,783
131,091
64,552
117,728
15,106
2,854
2,469
1,929
312,194
11,490
246,745
381,302
1,599
20,000
315,820
20,000
75,000
2,000
142,473
15,955
145,274
87,790
1,054,256
93,267
64,555
17,615
30,202
355,430
234,337
27,682
31,516
348,175
132,712
67,043
67,772
141,263
187,309
34,841
97,856
134,135
297,068
93,717
198,819
156,284
26,456
47,004
35,350
17,294
162,480
69,146
546,086
196,945
20,824
321,511
110,743
80,166
292,245
27,677
113,445
24,082
162,483
681,099
51,353
16,389
130,783
131,091
64,552
117,728
15,106
2,854
2,469
1,929
312,194
11,490
246,745
381,302
1,599
20,000
315,820
20,000
75,000
2,000
112,148
13,118
108,858
67,866
874,724
71,876
54,584
13,921
26,407
276,754
177,229
24,071
23,995
284,776
101,179
54,217
53,562
113,427
153,453
29,040
82,073
113,958
246,689
75,730
170,058
125,150
22,033
37,925
25,536
14,079
135,690
55,006
455,611
148,586
18,064
259,674
85,244
62,547
239,981
23,154
86,772
19,800
125,516
503,485
39,719
14,261
104,226
105,556
53,264
95,581
13,012
2,261
2,276
1,750
262,220
8,411
203,133
315,325
1,402
2,000
180,820
20,000
42,000
6,877,131
......
9,112,786
9,112,786
7,234,783
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
155
018
150
094
1209
099
075
019
036
383
245
033
033
394
140
075
074
157
212
040
113
158
341
105
235
173
030
052
035
019
188
076
630
205
025
359
118
086
332
032
120
027
173
696
055
020
144
146
074
132
018
003
003
002
362
012
281
436
002
003
250
028
058
100.00
134
75154501506
Table 831. FoSTer care - TiTle ive (93.658)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
38,130
13,445
81,803
40,596
1,318,927
63,538
67,296
3,980
15,477
161,979
87,130
21,661
9,364
182,838
51,840
25,848
19,146
56,455
55,959
14,179
119,508
66,166
77,484
45,903
9,012
60,914
13,297
20,853
25,655
15,795
53,474
25,633
394,122
77,755
10,288
174,094
44,225
47,935
304,012
13,333
26,271
4,745
44,636
214,447
18,987
11,085
80,644
90,909
25,007
61,507
1,229
16,927
39,239
13,836
84,181
41,776
1,357,277
65,385
69,253
4,096
15,927
166,689
89,664
22,291
9,636
188,154
53,347
26,600
19,703
58,097
57,586
14,592
122,983
68,090
79,737
47,237
9,274
62,685
13,683
21,460
26,401
16,254
55,029
26,378
405,582
80,016
10,588
179,156
45,511
49,329
312,852
13,721
27,035
4,883
45,934
220,683
19,539
11,408
82,989
93,552
25,735
63,296
1,264
20,387
39,239
13,836
84,181
41,776
1,357,277
65,385
69,253
4,096
15,927
166,689
89,664
22,291
9,636
188,154
53,347
26,600
19,703
58,097
57,586
14,592
122,983
68,090
79,737
47,237
9,274
62,685
13,683
21,460
26,401
16,254
55,029
26,378
405,582
80,016
10,588
179,156
45,511
49,329
312,852
13,721
27,035
4,883
45,934
220,683
19,539
11,408
82,989
93,552
25,735
63,296
1,264
20,387
39,188
13,818
84,072
41,722
1,355,520
65,303
69,163
4,091
15,906
166,473
89,548
22,262
9,624
187,911
53,278
26,565
19,677
58,022
57,512
14,573
122,824
68,002
79,634
47,176
9,262
62,604
13,666
21,432
26,367
16,233
54,958
26,344
405,058
79,913
10,574
178,924
45,452
49,265
312,447
13,703
27,000
4,877
45,874
220,398
19,514
11,393
82,882
93,431
25,701
63,214
1,263
27,000
20,387
Total
4,525,443
......
4,660,000
4,660,000
4,681,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
084
030
180
089
2896
140
148
009
034
356
191
048
021
401
114
057
042
124
123
031
262
145
170
101
020
134
029
046
056
035
117
056
865
171
023
382
097
105
667
029
058
010
098
471
042
024
177
200
055
135
003
058
044
1
100.00
135
75154501506
Table 832. adoPTion aSSiSTance (93.659)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
9,120
8,349
56,422
11,788
372,213
20,855
27,631
1,806
12,793
73,167
41,888
14,171
4,429
88,567
35,585
33,261
14,741
35,965
15,986
15,249
21,963
31,644
111,507
23,041
4,937
33,732
7,441
9,063
10,772
4,139
37,695
11,475
226,926
35,583
3,806
161,408
23,522
32,643
89,286
7,895
15,332
2,934
37,578
64,838
7,778
7,531
17,641
39,632
15,447
45,771
750
10,612
9,714
65,651
13,716
433,093
24,266
32,150
2,101
14,885
85,135
48,740
16,489
5,154
103,054
41,405
38,702
17,152
41,848
18,600
17,743
25,555
36,820
129,746
26,810
5,745
39,249
8,659
10,546
12,534
4,816
43,860
13,352
264,045
41,404
4,429
187,809
27,369
37,982
103,891
9,187
17,840
3,414
43,725
75,443
9,050
8,763
20,527
46,115
17,974
53,258
873
10,612
9,714
65,651
13,716
433,093
24,266
32,150
2,101
14,885
85,135
48,740
16,489
5,154
103,054
41,405
38,702
17,152
41,848
18,600
17,743
25,555
36,820
129,746
26,810
5,745
39,249
8,659
10,546
12,534
4,816
43,860
13,352
264,045
41,404
4,429
187,809
27,369
37,982
103,891
9,187
17,840
3,414
43,725
75,443
9,050
8,763
20,527
46,115
17,974
53,258
873
11,019
10,087
68,171
14,243
449,715
25,198
33,384
2,182
15,457
88,402
50,611
17,121
5,351
107,009
42,995
40,187
17,810
43,454
19,314
18,424
26,536
38,233
134,726
27,839
5,965
40,756
8,991
10,950
13,015
5,001
45,544
13,864
274,179
42,993
4,599
195,017
28,420
39,440
107,878
9,539
18,525
3,545
45,403
78,339
9,398
9,099
21,314
47,885
18,664
55,302
907
2,037,696
......
2,371,000
2,371,000
2,462,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
045
041
277
058
1827
102
136
009
063
359
206
070
022
435
175
163
072
176
078
075
108
155
547
113
024
166
037
044
053
020
185
056
1114
175
019
792
115
160
438
039
075
014
184
318
038
037
087
194
076
225
004
100.00
136
75153401506
Table 833. Social ServiceS block granT (93.667)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
25,968
3,783
34,817
15,871
205,854
26,839
19,789
4,819
3,284
102,142
52,872
7,258
8,280
72,454
35,648
16,838
15,607
23,749
24,210
7,462
31,708
36,347
57,004
29,175
16,434
32,990
5,334
9,985
14,091
7,424
49,262
11,036
109,010
50,007
3,590
64,809
20,210
20,896
70,244
6,028
24,399
4,415
34,097
132,734
14,399
3,523
43,155
36,113
10,268
31,374
2,908
49
293
59
8,793
293
25,938
3,831
35,527
15,888
204,874
27,248
19,630
4,847
3,297
102,294
53,496
7,193
8,404
72,035
35,564
16,747
15,559
23,772
24,062
7,383
31,489
36,149
56,450
29,131
16,359
32,947
5,369
9,946
14,378
7,375
48,682
11,041
108,159
50,785
3,585
64,269
20,274
21,004
69,683
5,929
24,704
4,463
34,507
133,978
14,826
3,482
43,224
36,254
10,156
31,396
2,930
49
293
59
8,793
293
25,938
3,831
35,527
15,888
204,874
27,248
19,630
4,847
3,297
102,294
53,496
7,193
8,404
72,035
35,564
16,747
15,559
23,772
24,062
7,383
31,489
36,149
56,450
29,131
16,359
32,947
5,369
9,946
14,378
7,375
48,682
11,041
108,159
50,785
3,585
64,269
20,274
21,004
69,683
5,929
24,704
4,463
34,507
133,978
14,826
3,482
43,224
36,254
10,156
31,396
2,930
49
293
59
8,793
293
25,938
3,831
35,527
15,888
204,874
27,248
19,630
4,847
3,297
102,294
53,496
7,193
8,404
72,035
35,564
16,747
15,559
23,772
24,062
7,383
31,489
36,149
56,450
29,131
16,359
32,947
5,369
9,946
14,378
7,375
48,682
11,041
108,159
50,785
3,585
64,269
20,274
21,004
69,683
5,929
24,704
4,463
34,507
133,978
14,826
3,482
43,224
36,254
10,156
31,396
2,930
49
293
59
8,793
293
1,700,000
......
1,700,000
1,700,000
1,700,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
153
023
209
093
1205
160
115
029
019
602
315
042
049
424
209
099
092
140
142
043
185
213
332
171
096
194
032
059
085
043
286
065
636
299
021
378
119
124
410
035
145
026
203
788
087
020
254
213
060
185
017
*
002
*
052
002
100.00
137
department of Health and Human Services, Hiv/aidS bureau
75035001551
Table 834. ryan wHiTe Hiv/aidS TreaTmenT modernizaTion acT ParT b Hiv care granTS (93.917)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Freely Associated States 1
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Marshall Islands
Republic of Palau
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
19,771
1,133
13,543
7,901
122,935
13,393
14,968
5,231
18,815
117,255
40,849
3,237
1,254
36,398
12,994
2,881
3,435
7,600
25,158
1,399
35,073
19,567
16,953
7,090
13,997
13,787
865
2,382
8,010
1,501
45,926
4,061
168,963
29,521
344
23,339
9,083
6,830
38,671
3,357
28,880
806
18,359
89,739
4,285
902
29,021
11,760
2,456
9,476
680
52
291
54
32,320
55
1,141
53
50
17,617
1,077
13,340
7,419
128,263
12,712
14,961
5,272
18,841
116,269
37,857
3,296
1,115
38,136
11,356
2,685
3,647
8,075
21,402
1,621
36,483
19,889
17,346
7,363
14,305
14,030
804
2,251
8,483
1,503
45,581
4,066
167,972
31,201
350
21,023
8,308
6,056
28,561
3,480
25,597
830
18,592
78,534
3,822
913
25,352
13,214
2,457
8,469
693
30
238
45
30,878
39
1,145
27
44
1,149,851
......
1,114,936
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
17,617
1,077
13,340
7,419
128,263
12,712
14,961
5,272
18,841
116,269
37,857
3,296
1,115
38,136
11,356
2,685
3,647
8,075
21,402
1,621
36,483
19,889
17,346
7,363
14,305
14,030
804
2,251
8,483
1,503
45,581
4,066
167,972
31,201
350
21,023
8,308
6,056
28,561
3,480
25,597
830
18,592
78,534
3,822
913
25,352
13,214
2,457
8,469
693
30
238
45
30,878
39
1,145
27
44
2
1,114,936
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
1,209,487
1,209,487
......
Micronesia
2 Total includes AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and Base Formula awards, and Competitive ADAP Supplemental and Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) award amounts
3 FY 2010 data will be available in March 2010
138
department of Housing and urban development, Public and indian Housing Programs
86016301604
Table 835. Public HouSing oPeraTing Fund (14.850)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Asset Management Transition
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
129,829
9,101
35,294
19,715
127,400
25,186
66,520
10,740
46,771
127,867
146,891
18,619
1,478
249,413
47,518
7,229
18,944
56,794
66,027
14,274
93,270
145,703
58,176
49,914
38,228
40,521
5,152
13,756
16,189
12,090
167,571
10,906
930,337
122,755
3,604
185,609
33,709
17,328
273,528
34,591
45,496
2,916
104,158
174,685
4,783
4,639
71,459
40,463
18,645
22,656
1,608
3,932
201,439
18,397
5,940
137,730
9,655
37,442
20,915
135,154
26,719
70,568
11,394
49,617
135,649
155,831
19,752
1,568
264,592
50,410
7,669
20,097
60,250
70,045
15,143
98,946
154,571
61,717
52,952
40,555
42,987
5,466
14,593
17,174
12,826
177,769
11,570
986,957
130,226
3,823
196,905
35,761
18,383
290,175
36,696
48,265
3,093
110,497
185,316
5,074
4,921
75,808
42,926
19,780
24,035
1,706
4,171
213,699
19,517
5,940
137,730
9,655
37,442
20,915
135,154
26,719
70,568
11,394
49,617
135,649
155,831
19,752
1,568
264,592
50,410
7,669
20,097
60,250
70,045
15,143
98,946
154,571
61,717
52,952
40,555
42,987
5,466
14,593
17,174
12,826
177,769
11,570
986,957
130,226
3,823
196,905
35,761
18,383
290,175
36,696
48,265
3,093
110,497
185,316
5,074
4,921
75,808
42,926
19,780
24,035
1,706
4,171
213,699
19,517
5,940
142,219
9,970
38,662
21,597
139,559
27,590
72,868
11,765
51,234
140,070
160,910
20,396
1,619
273,215
52,053
7,919
20,752
62,214
72,328
15,637
102,171
159,609
63,728
54,678
41,877
44,388
5,644
15,069
17,734
13,244
183,563
11,947
1,019,120
134,470
3,948
203,322
36,926
18,982
299,632
37,892
49,838
3,194
114,098
191,356
5,239
5,081
78,279
44,325
20,425
24,818
1,762
4,307
220,664
20,153
5,940
4,199,763
......
4,455,000
4,455,000
4,600,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
309
022
084
047
303
060
158
026
111
304
350
044
004
594
113
017
045
135
157
034
222
347
139
119
091
096
012
033
039
029
399
026
2215
292
009
442
080
041
651
082
108
007
248
416
011
011
170
096
044
054
004
009
480
044
013
1
100.00
139
Table 836.
86030201604
SecTion 8 HouSinG cHoice voucHerS (14.871)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska ..........................................................................................................................
Arizona ........................................................................................................................
Arkansas ......................................................................................................................
California .....................................................................................................................
Colorado ......................................................................................................................
Connecticut ..................................................................................................................
Delaware .....................................................................................................................
District of Columbia .....................................................................................................
Florida ..........................................................................................................................
Georgia ........................................................................................................................
Hawaii ..........................................................................................................................
Idaho ............................................................................................................................
Illinois ...........................................................................................................................
Indiana .........................................................................................................................
Iowa .............................................................................................................................
Kansas .........................................................................................................................
Kentucky ......................................................................................................................
Louisiana .....................................................................................................................
Maine ...........................................................................................................................
Maryland ......................................................................................................................
Massachusetts .............................................................................................................
Michigan ......................................................................................................................
Minnesota ....................................................................................................................
Mississippi ...................................................................................................................
Missouri .......................................................................................................................
Montana .......................................................................................................................
Nebraska .....................................................................................................................
Nevada ........................................................................................................................
New Hampshire ...........................................................................................................
New Jersey ..................................................................................................................
New Mexico .................................................................................................................
New York .....................................................................................................................
North Carolina .............................................................................................................
North Dakota ...............................................................................................................
Ohio .............................................................................................................................
Oklahoma ....................................................................................................................
Oregon .........................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania ...............................................................................................................
Rhode Island ...............................................................................................................
South Carolina .............................................................................................................
South Dakota ...............................................................................................................
Tennessee ...................................................................................................................
Texas ...........................................................................................................................
Utah .............................................................................................................................
Vermont .......................................................................................................................
Virginia .........................................................................................................................
Washington ..................................................................................................................
West Virginia ...............................................................................................................
Wisconsin ....................................................................................................................
Wyoming ......................................................................................................................
American Samoa .........................................................................................................
Guam ...........................................................................................................................
Northern Mariana Islands ............................................................................................
Puerto Rico ..................................................................................................................
Freely Associated States .............................................................................................
Virgin Islands ...............................................................................................................
Indian Tribes ................................................................................................................
Undistributed ...............................................................................................................
Disaster Assistance .....................................................................................................
Competitive ..................................................................................................................
139,360
30,483
139,780
93,719
2,856,359
207,462
308,771
34,467
151,476
733,103
396,948
98,420
34,749
770,942
181,371
88,311
56,290
164,748
193,200
74,334
383,800
766,926
307,758
199,067
99,311
214,124
26,043
55,477
96,832
71,955
599,001
71,641
1,802,420
314,547
28,603
500,939
125,176
189,786
519,000
64,942
124,925
23,896
169,249
874,765
63,769
37,924
310,433
350,964
60,441
132,553
10,998
31,483
3,259
155,711
9,612
631
138
633
424
12,931
939
1,398
156
686
3,319
1,797
446
157
3,490
821
400
255
746
875
337
1,737
3,472
1,393
901
450
969
118
251
438
326
2,712
324
8,160
1,424
129
2,268
567
859
2,350
294
566
108
766
3,960
289
172
1,405
1,589
274
600
50
143
15
705
44
85,000
200,977
142,411
31,150
142,840
95,770
2,918,889
212,003
315,531
35,222
154,792
749,152
405,637
100,574
35,510
787,819
185,342
90,244
57,522
168,355
197,430
75,961
392,202
783,715
314,496
203,424
101,485
218,812
26,613
56,692
98,952
73,531
612,114
73,209
1,841,877
321,433
29,229
511,905
127,917
193,941
530,362
66,364
127,660
24,419
172,954
893,915
65,165
38,754
317,228
358,647
61,764
135,455
11,239
32,172
3,331
159,119
9,822
325,000
143,042
31,288
143,473
96,195
2,931,820
212,942
316,929
35,378
155,478
752,470
407,434
101,020
35,667
791,309
186,163
90,644
57,777
169,101
198,304
76,298
393,939
787,187
315,889
204,326
101,935
219,781
26,731
56,943
99,390
73,856
614,826
73,533
1,850,037
322,857
29,359
514,173
128,483
194,800
532,711
66,658
128,225
24,527
173,721
897,875
65,453
38,925
318,634
360,236
62,038
136,055
11,289
32,315
3,345
159,824
9,866
85,000
525,977
158,908
34,759
159,387
106,864
3,257,011
236,562
352,082
39,302
172,723
835,933
452,626
112,225
39,624
879,079
206,812
100,698
64,185
187,857
220,300
84,761
437,634
874,501
350,927
226,989
113,241
244,159
29,696
63,259
110,414
82,048
683,021
81,689
2,055,239
358,668
32,615
571,204
142,734
216,407
591,799
74,051
142,448
27,247
192,989
997,465
72,713
43,243
353,976
400,193
68,919
151,146
12,541
35,899
3,717
177,552
10,960
103,000
Total ...........................................................................................................................
15,551,625
356,380
16,217,071
16,573,451
17,836,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
089
019
089
060
1826
133
197
022
097
469
254
063
022
493
116
056
036
105
124
048
245
490
197
127
063
137
017
035
062
046
383
046
1152
201
018
320
080
121
332
042
080
015
108
559
041
024
198
224
039
085
007
020
002
100
006
058
1
100.00
140
86030401604
Table 837. Public HouSing caPiTal Fund (14.872)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Other Expenses
75,600
3,604
10,983
22,933
98,715
16,884
29,597
5,584
23,889
70,757
91,567
13,275
1,467
177,878
31,899
6,311
13,423
45,399
73,900
8,000
48,757
71,717
43,639
37,427
26,302
38,917
3,817
10,854
8,210
7,210
86,305
7,626
404,256
74,396
3,312
103,976
20,409
11,972
171,854
15,773
29,280
2,419
65,620
110,037
3,312
2,816
50,685
34,205
10,776
21,299
1,070
1,568
138,170
7,439
Previous
authority
2,854
136
415
866
3,727
637
1,117
211
902
2,671
3,457
501
55
6,716
1,204
238
507
1,714
2,790
302
1,841
2,708
1,648
1,413
993
1,469
144
410
310
272
3,258
288
15,265
2,809
125
3,926
771
452
6,488
595
1,105
91
2,477
4,154
125
106
1,914
1,291
407
804
40
59
5,217
281
New authority
166,006
6,843
22,844
51,518
214,772
34,169
64,783
12,547
50,459
154,929
202,516
29,270
2,929
396,023
68,174
13,807
29,699
96,586
145,400
16,181
96,040
152,252
96,283
83,966
58,202
85,868
8,174
23,715
18,190
14,800
188,843
16,796
898,973
156,420
6,684
230,341
45,149
26,112
380,768
34,333
64,607
5,118
144,687
227,752
7,373
6,139
100,683
73,811
23,779
46,902
2,405
3,522
310,143
16,715
1 995,000
3,636
Total
168,860
6,979
23,259
52,384
218,499
34,806
65,900
12,758
51,361
157,600
205,973
29,771
2,984
402,739
69,378
14,045
30,206
98,300
148,190
16,483
97,881
154,960
97,931
85,379
59,195
87,337
8,318
24,125
18,500
15,072
192,101
17,084
914,238
159,229
6,809
234,267
45,920
26,564
387,256
34,928
65,712
5,209
147,164
231,906
7,498
6,245
102,597
75,102
24,186
47,706
2,445
3,581
315,360
16,996
1 995,000
3,636
FY 2010
(estimated)
67,937
3,239
9,870
20,609
88,710
15,173
26,597
5,018
21,468
63,585
82,286
11,930
1,318
158,850
28,665
5,671
12,063
40,798
66,410
7,189
43,816
64,449
39,216
33,633
23,636
34,972
3,430
9,754
7,378
6,479
77,557
6,853
362,284
66,856
2,977
93,438
18,341
10,758
153,436
14,174
26,312
2,173
58,969
97,884
2,977
2,530
45,548
30,738
9,684
19,140
961
1,409
123,166
6,685
5,455
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
303
014
044
092
395
068
119
022
096
283
367
053
006
708
128
025
054
182
296
032
195
287
175
150
105
156
015
043
033
029
346
031
1614
298
013
416
082
048
684
063
117
010
263
436
013
011
203
137
043
085
004
006
549
030
024
3 100.00
2,497,090
94,276
6,433,636
6,527,912
2,244,454
Total 2
1 Public Housing Capital Fund, Recovery Act Funded (Competitive)14884; To be distributed by September 30, 2009, in accordance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA), 2009
2 Other CFDA program numbers are: 14884 - Public Housing Capital Fund, Recovery Act Funded (Competitive) and 14885 - Public Housing Capital Fund, Recovery Act Funded
(Formula)
3 Excludes undistributed obligations.
141
department of Housing and urban development, community Planning and development
86016201451
Table 838. communiTy develoPmenT block granTS and neigHborHood STabilizaTion Program (14.218)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
1 25,043
1 590
1 17,457
1 4,571
1 59,325
1 162,056
1 196,988
1 3,218
1 2,438,223
1 2,187
1 926
1 8,564
1 25,012
1 667
1 5,558
1 1,794
1 1,987
1 20,636
1 1,314,990
1 3,128
1 49,097
1 17,983
3,980,575
New authority
62,106
5,942
68,333
34,691
584,772
47,930
52,472
9,039
23,173
202,047
104,034
19,130
15,383
219,261
87,814
51,765
35,116
57,415
82,227
24,927
69,333
137,860
164,355
72,851
44,487
84,353
11,544
24,354
25,527
16,640
126,603
26,564
437,546
89,965
7,989
203,131
38,049
46,123
278,408
21,588
48,848
10,067
62,790
321,520
26,016
10,515
76,733
77,192
31,552
83,335
5,315
1,928
5,700
2,750
139,237
3,622
66,000
3 55,000
166,000
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
62,106
5,942
68,333
59,734
584,772
48,520
52,472
9,039
23,173
219,504
108,605
19,130
15,383
278,586
249,870
248,753
35,116
60,633
2,520,450
27,114
69,333
137,860
164,355
73,777
53,051
109,365
12,211
29,912
25,527
16,640
126,603
26,564
437,546
89,965
7,989
203,131
39,843
46,123
278,408
21,588
48,848
12,054
83,426
1,636,510
26,016
10,515
76,733
77,192
34,680
132,432
5,315
1,928
5,700
2,750
157,220
3,622
66,000
3 4,035,575
166,000
55,707
5,330
61,286
31,117
524,733
42,990
47,067
8,107
20,784
181,208
93,312
17,157
13,798
196,657
78,767
46,433
31,498
51,499
73,751
22,360
62,183
123,655
147,469
65,343
39,905
75,658
10,355
21,846
22,894
14,926
113,555
23,827
392,456
80,696
7,166
182,195
34,128
41,369
249,712
19,363
43,814
9,030
56,320
288,521
23,334
9,433
68,848
69,235
28,301
74,749
4,768
964
2,850
1,375
124,885
1,811
65,000
3 1,955,000
244,000
4,855,430
8,340,575 6 4,908,967
13,249,542
Total 5
1 Disaster funds allocated to these states (both obligated and projections)
2 The FY08 obligation includes disaster funding to these States
3 Neighborhood Stabilization Program - Competitive Grants (PL 1105); also includes $30m in administrive transfers for CDBG and NSP
4 Set-asides include Congressional earmarks and technical assistance; 2010 estimates also include competitive grant funds
5 In addition to CFDA 14218, this table also reflects funds in CFDA 14225, 14227, 14228 and 14256
6 Estimated obligations from Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (PL 1108) and Recovery Act (PL 1105)
6,404,500
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Set-asides 4
48,334
4,624
53,174
26,999
455,284
37,300
40,837
7,034
18,033
157,225
80,962
14,887
11,972
170,630
68,342
2 125,288
27,329
44,683
2 1,063,990
19,400
53,953
107,289
127,951
56,695
34,623
65,645
8,984
18,954
19,864
12,951
98,526
20,673
340,515
70,015
6,218
158,082
29,611
35,894
216,663
16,801
38,016
7,835
48,866
250,335
20,246
8,184
59,736
60,072
24,556
64,856
4,137
964
2,850
1,375
108,357
1,811
56,000
121,000
Previous
authority
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
125
012
138
070
1179
097
106
018
047
407
210
039
031
442
177
104
071
116
166
050
140
278
331
147
090
170
023
049
051
034
255
054
882
181
016
409
077
093
561
044
098
020
127
648
052
021
155
156
064
168
011
002
006
003
281
004
146
548
7
100.00
142
86019201604
Table 839. emergency SHelTer granT, HomeleSSneSS PrevenTion and raPid-re-HouSing Program (14.231)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
2,147
205
2,353
1,197
20,336
1,662
1,816
314
809
7,008
3,581
662
529
7,630
3,056
1,792
1,215
1,984
2,705
861
2,417
4,775
5,736
2,527
1,531
2,935
400
844
881
575
4,394
916
15,208
3,099
277
7,055
1,317
1,595
9,665
746
1,691
348
2,179
11,105
894
363
2,667
2,675
1,093
2,908
183
44
130
63
4,819
83
22,221
2,125
24,437
12,410
209,423
17,153
18,776
3,235
8,298
72,306
37,206
6,845
5,501
78,495
31,439
18,524
12,565
20,541
29,281
8,918
24,825
49,334
58,876
26,073
15,911
30,198
4,131
8,716
9,131
5,954
45,314
9,502
156,629
32,177
2,860
72,709
13,615
16,502
99,649
7,724
17,480
3,602
22,474
115,073
9,302
6,066
25,172
27,624
11,292
29,844
1,901
457
1,352
652
49,821
859
22,221
2,125
24,437
12,410
209,423
17,153
18,776
3,235
8,298
72,306
37,206
6,845
5,501
78,495
31,439
18,524
12,565
20,541
29,281
8,918
24,825
49,334
58,876
26,073
15,911
30,198
4,131
8,716
9,131
5,954
45,314
9,502
156,629
32,177
2,860
72,709
13,615
16,502
99,649
7,724
17,480
3,602
22,474
115,073
9,302
6,066
25,172
27,624
11,292
29,844
1,901
457
1,352
652
49,821
859
2,013
192
2,206
1,122
19,065
1,558
1,703
294
758
6,570
3,357
621
496
7,153
2,865
1,680
1,139
1,860
2,536
807
2,266
4,477
5,378
2,369
1,435
2,752
375
791
826
539
4,119
859
14,258
2,905
260
6,614
1,235
1,495
9,061
699
1,585
326
2,043
10,411
838
340
2,500
2,508
1,025
2,726
172
41
122
59
4,518
78
Total 1
1 In addition to CFDA 14231, this table also reflects funds in CFDA 14257
160,000
......
1,652,500
1,652,500
150,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
134
013
147
075
1271
104
114
020
051
438
224
041
033
477
191
112
076
124
169
054
151
298
359
158
096
183
025
053
055
036
275
057
951
194
017
441
082
100
604
047
106
022
136
694
056
023
167
167
068
182
011
003
008
004
301
005
100.00
143
86020501604
Table 840. Home inveSTmenT ParTnerSHiP Program (14.258)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Other activities
Total 2
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
23,218
3,987
23,495
14,868
236,616
19,906
19,024
4,796
8,453
73,529
39,616
7,170
6,359
68,808
27,674
13,798
12,455
22,971
28,594
7,764
23,070
43,306
46,496
20,683
15,886
28,131
5,679
8,284
11,040
6,012
44,502
10,077
183,342
37,929
3,536
60,696
18,698
19,879
69,040
8,671
18,452
3,931
28,379
107,858
8,464
3,932
32,176
31,285
12,001
25,899
3,517
307
1,267
583
30,795
1,131
1 65,965
25,635
4,405
25,920
16,417
261,448
21,942
20,997
5,302
9,342
81,139
43,710
7,912
7,023
75,958
30,526
15,226
13,736
25,365
31,597
8,577
25,434
47,821
51,326
22,812
17,556
31,038
6,273
9,131
12,183
6,635
49,135
11,133
202,706
41,842
3,900
66,979
20,638
21,938
76,258
9,574
20,366
4,336
31,315
119,023
9,338
4,346
35,499
34,507
13,271
28,557
3,889
341
1,406
647
34,214
1,256
1 16,200
25,635
4,405
25,920
16,417
261,448
21,942
20,997
5,302
9,342
81,139
43,710
7,912
7,023
75,958
30,526
15,226
13,736
25,365
31,597
8,577
25,434
47,821
51,326
22,812
17,556
31,038
6,273
9,131
12,183
6,635
49,135
11,133
202,706
41,842
3,900
66,979
20,638
21,938
76,258
9,574
20,366
4,336
31,315
119,023
9,338
4,346
35,499
34,507
13,271
28,557
3,889
341
1,406
647
34,214
1,256
1 16,200
25,865
4,445
26,153
16,565
263,793
22,139
21,185
5,349
9,426
81,867
44,102
7,982
7,086
76,640
30,800
15,363
13,860
25,593
31,880
8,654
25,662
48,250
51,787
23,017
17,713
31,317
6,329
9,212
12,291
6,695
49,576
11,233
204,526
42,217
3,935
67,580
20,823
22,135
76,943
9,660
20,549
4,376
31,596
120,092
9,421
4,385
35,818
34,816
13,390
28,813
3,924
340
1,406
648
34,522
1,256
1,704,000
......
1,825,000
1,825,000
1,825,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
142
024
143
091
1445
121
116
029
052
449
242
044
039
420
169
084
076
140
175
047
141
264
284
126
097
172
035
050
067
037
272
062
1121
231
022
370
114
121
422
053
113
024
173
658
052
024
196
191
073
158
022
002
008
004
189
007
100.00
FY 2008 and FY 2009 include set-asides for technical assistance and transfer to Working Capital Fund FY 2008 includes a set-aside for the Housing Counseling program
the TCAP program and HOME program both appear under CFDA 14258, they are two distinct programs and reflected as such, with the TCAP representing funds obligated
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the HOME program representing the non-ARRA portion of this account
2 While
144
86020501604
Table 841. Tax crediT aSSiSTance Program (14.258)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
31,952
5,491
20,463
32,308
325,876
27,350
26,171
11,644
6,609
101,134
54,482
9,862
8,754
94,676
38,048
18,979
17,121
31,616
39,383
10,691
31,702
59,606
63,975
28,434
21,882
38,687
7,818
11,381
15,185
8,270
61,244
13,877
252,659
52,153
4,861
83,485
25,724
27,344
95,049
11,933
25,385
5,405
39,033
148,354
11,639
5,417
44,248
43,010
16,542
35,595
4,847
42,646
31,952
5,491
20,463
32,308
325,876
27,350
26,171
11,644
6,609
101,134
54,482
9,862
8,754
94,676
38,048
18,979
17,121
31,616
39,383
10,691
31,702
59,606
63,975
28,434
21,882
38,687
7,818
11,381
15,185
8,270
61,244
13,877
252,659
52,153
4,861
83,485
25,724
27,344
95,049
11,933
25,385
5,405
39,033
148,354
11,639
5,417
44,248
43,010
16,542
35,595
4,847
42,646
Total 1
......
......
2,250,000
2,250,000
......
......
1 While
the TCAP program and HOME program both appear under CFDA 14258, they are two distinct programs and reflected as such, with the TCAP only representing funds obligated
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and the HOME program representing the non-ARRA portion of this account
145
department of Justice, office of Justice Programs
15040401754
Table 842. edward byrne memorial JuSTice aSSiSTance granT Program (16.738)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
2,377
764
3,234
1,760
19,384
2,374
1,683
853
1,165
12,124
4,557
857
909
9,676
2,832
1,491
1,529
1,890
2,781
772
3,589
3,302
7,863
2,318
1,462
3,218
398
1,055
1,748
793
3,908
1,675
8,983
4,405
398
4,982
2,093
1,746
5,837
770
2,998
379
3,938
11,704
1,259
398
3,186
2,887
1,059
2,885
381
398
398
373
1,764
398
38,080
12,085
52,769
27,905
283,365
37,544
25,894
13,713
14,764
169,901
74,245
13,463
14,430
105,199
44,506
23,517
25,119
30,240
44,379
12,081
55,201
51,295
84,254
36,663
23,129
50,695
6,253
16,503
28,848
12,291
60,040
23,012
139,060
70,849
6,253
77,513
32,923
27,746
91,003
11,901
47,762
6,253
63,350
185,508
20,427
6,253
50,065
46,156
16,521
37,794
6,253
4,190
6,253
2,063
27,269
6,253
10,996
38,080
12,085
52,769
27,905
283,365
37,544
25,894
13,713
14,764
169,901
74,245
13,463
14,430
105,199
44,506
23,517
25,119
30,240
44,379
12,081
55,201
51,295
84,254
36,663
23,129
50,695
6,253
16,503
28,848
12,291
60,040
23,012
139,060
70,849
6,253
77,513
32,923
27,746
91,003
11,901
47,762
6,253
63,350
185,508
20,427
6,253
50,065
46,156
16,521
37,794
6,253
4,190
6,253
2,063
27,269
6,253
1 10,996
519,000
Total
167,960
......
2,512,000
2,512,000
519,000
......
Undistributed includes $10M for National Institute of Justice and $1M for Bureau of Justice Statistics
146
department of labor, employment and Training administration
16017901504
Table 843. unemPloymenT inSurance (17.225)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
30,059
21,734
29,080
22,365
379,024
34,223
51,625
9,532
10,328
87,828
58,505
14,804
16,922
130,396
41,528
24,633
17,970
27,983
23,778
13,446
52,749
63,463
129,323
44,773
21,654
37,968
9,356
13,562
27,803
11,893
101,810
12,736
176,962
53,650
6,775
98,531
18,450
47,727
132,793
15,283
31,799
5,099
33,678
114,010
24,778
7,388
39,726
80,561
13,216
61,448
6,907
18,897
1,716
1,887
1,269
9
1,299
232
17,931
456
1,575
188
259
7,004
2,387
645
201
1,299
1,512
175
380
989
839
1
1,674
105
2,132
386
329
774
2
1
1,579
392
1,149
407
1,732
2,072
8
3,285
154
1,228
816
474
1,135
41
848
3,086
726
25
577
88
4
239
29
562
56
34,566
24,934
31,539
23,849
417,871
37,488
55,561
11,163
10,919
89,503
64,836
15,824
17,475
147,130
41,732
29,014
19,766
28,641
29,012
15,195
61,760
72,851
144,665
47,272
24,332
44,838
10,449
15,068
28,611
12,476
108,338
14,638
193,652
61,026
7,490
103,630
22,053
52,997
140,831
15,408
32,703
5,710
37,173
132,627
25,254
8,310
46,902
88,365
14,353
70,744
7,423
20,108
2,031
2,040
35,835
24,942
32,838
24,080
435,803
37,945
57,136
11,351
11,178
96,507
67,223
16,469
17,676
148,429
43,244
29,189
20,146
29,630
29,851
15,196
63,435
72,955
146,797
47,659
24,662
45,612
10,451
15,069
30,190
12,868
109,487
15,045
195,385
63,097
7,498
106,914
22,207
54,225
141,647
15,881
33,838
5,752
38,022
135,713
25,979
8,334
47,479
88,453
14,357
70,983
7,452
20,670
2,087
2,040
3,195,645
2,564,134
64,765
2,822,145
2,886,910
3,195,645
147
16017401504
Table 844. wia youTH acTiviTieS (17.259)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
9,534
3,277
10,712
10,057
128,095
8,155
7,291
2,211
2,693
24,126
19,549
2,307
2,225
39,903
18,164
3,806
5,825
13,968
16,560
3,281
9,696
21,105
57,152
10,910
15,032
19,196
2,206
2,328
4,457
2,212
15,553
3,777
52,348
18,487
2,166
46,312
4,350
12,504
31,482
3,261
20,712
1,966
16,548
68,588
3,957
2,226
9,183
19,907
4,506
11,832
2,158
132
1,073
390
35,944
75
633
9,382
20,707
6,998
31,700
21,451
331,782
21,112
19,618
5,188
7,058
76,221
55,756
5,188
5,188
110,587
42,095
9,195
12,662
31,485
35,578
7,634
20,598
44,158
131,470
31,626
33,222
45,157
5,188
5,235
13,458
5,188
37,040
11,086
127,162
44,572
5,188
99,841
15,481
26,788
72,265
9,976
43,934
5,188
44,622
145,784
9,008
5,188
23,081
41,682
9,499
24,550
5,188
302
2,457
909
75,482
162
1,450
31,681
20,707
6,998
31,700
21,451
331,782
21,112
19,618
5,188
7,058
76,221
55,756
5,188
5,188
110,587
42,095
9,195
12,662
31,485
35,578
7,634
20,598
44,158
131,470
31,626
33,222
45,157
5,188
5,235
13,458
5,188
37,040
11,086
127,162
44,572
5,188
99,841
15,481
26,788
72,265
9,976
43,934
5,188
44,622
145,784
9,008
5,188
23,081
41,682
9,499
24,550
5,188
302
2,457
909
75,482
162
1,450
31,681
9,060
3,062
13,869
9,385
145,161
9,237
8,583
2,270
3,088
33,348
24,394
2,270
2,270
48,384
18,417
4,023
5,540
13,775
15,566
3,340
9,012
19,320
57,521
13,837
14,535
19,757
2,270
2,290
5,888
2,270
16,206
4,850
55,636
19,501
2,270
43,682
6,773
11,720
31,617
4,365
19,222
2,270
19,523
63,783
3,941
2,270
10,098
18,237
4,156
10,741
2,270
132
1,073
397
33,025
75
633
13,861
Total
875,485
......
2,112,069
2,112,069
924,069
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
098
033
150
102
1571
100
093
025
033
361
264
025
025
524
199
044
060
149
168
036
098
209
622
150
157
214
025
025
064
025
175
052
602
211
025
473
073
127
342
047
208
025
211
690
043
025
109
197
045
116
025
001
012
004
357
001
007
150
100.00
148
16017401504
Table 845. wia diSlocaTed workerS (17.260)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
1
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
7,352
4,890
6,318
8,172
136,429
7,951
8,818
1,533
3,841
23,520
22,986
1,674
2,079
46,440
21,556
5,915
3,462
25,868
15,841
3,564
11,213
24,368
97,806
11,106
29,085
21,510
1,707
2,115
4,604
2,363
27,199
1,896
29,431
26,986
973
51,591
3,138
16,696
33,472
4,762
32,910
972
19,645
77,506
2,438
1,190
7,776
23,327
4,780
18,934
730
201
1,634
525
50,966
133
1,016
25,816
6,939
34,051
14,710
434,198
28,303
29,123
3,990
7,421
157,611
85,705
4,228
5,543
134,096
51,290
10,225
10,182
36,615
18,116
8,946
22,022
41,526
153,502
41,017
27,804
50,542
3,436
5,070
28,003
4,895
63,994
5,794
129,858
86,912
1,793
114,485
11,785
33,580
83,122
15,547
48,339
1,866
55,514
105,205
6,920
3,422
27,618
43,324
7,004
31,423
1,142
440
3,253
1,203
57,768
440
1,920
25,816
6,939
34,051
14,710
434,198
28,303
29,123
3,990
7,421
157,611
85,705
4,228
5,543
134,096
51,290
10,225
10,182
36,615
18,116
8,946
22,022
41,526
153,502
41,017
27,804
50,542
3,436
5,070
28,003
4,895
63,994
5,794
129,858
86,912
1,793
114,485
11,785
33,580
83,122
15,547
48,339
1,866
55,514
105,205
6,920
3,422
27,618
43,324
7,004
31,423
1,142
440
3,253
1,203
57,768
440
1,920
12,622
3,393
16,648
7,192
212,289
13,838
14,239
1,951
3,628
77,059
41,903
2,067
2,710
65,562
25,077
4,999
4,978
17,902
8,857
4,374
10,767
20,303
75,050
20,054
13,594
24,711
1,680
2,479
13,691
2,393
31,288
2,833
63,490
42,493
877
55,974
5,762
16,418
40,640
7,601
23,634
912
27,142
51,437
3,383
1,673
13,503
21,182
3,424
15,363
558
222
1,644
608
28,244
222
970
1,004,913
......
2,428,596
2,428,596
1,187,507
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
106
029
140
061
1788
117
120
016
031
649
353
017
023
552
211
042
042
151
075
037
091
171
632
169
114
208
014
021
115
020
263
024
535
358
007
471
049
138
342
064
199
008
229
433
028
014
114
178
029
129
005
002
014
005
238
002
008
100.00
149
department of Transportation, Federal aviation administration
69810607402
Table 846. airPorT imProvemenT Program (20.106)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Total
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
62,022
218,953
74,795
36,915
295,684
90,226
16,557
8,945
155
163,137
97,062
38,798
28,490
140,891
63,026
42,657
34,073
81,567
68,595
21,086
40,993
52,220
111,128
67,091
59,558
85,532
35,205
25,971
58,216
29,263
46,028
23,418
136,736
80,644
21,989
91,036
43,073
39,151
114,038
19,055
35,709
26,926
66,698
252,463
38,880
7,086
71,946
96,679
31,457
57,170
22,947
7,424
15,505
8,972
12,155
37,244
3,760
79,370
293,740
93,835
47,168
366,991
125,837
22,024
11,675
8,273
208,282
127,139
40,091
34,433
183,412
83,616
51,849
40,585
103,491
89,787
26,272
52,042
68,622
137,276
86,239
76,429
120,247
42,295
30,765
72,624
40,371
53,400
25,257
165,027
92,503
26,006
121,656
52,869
47,568
138,239
26,572
39,723
32,414
74,411
308,299
53,230
7,707
79,834
141,129
39,325
64,399
29,736
9,902
19,971
10,655
13,308
51,398
3,589
79,370
293,740
93,835
47,168
366,991
125,837
22,024
11,675
8,273
208,282
127,139
40,091
34,433
183,412
83,616
51,849
40,585
103,491
89,787
26,272
52,042
68,622
137,276
86,239
76,429
120,247
42,295
30,765
72,624
40,371
53,400
25,257
165,027
92,503
26,006
121,656
52,869
47,568
138,239
26,572
39,723
32,414
74,411
308,299
53,230
7,707
79,834
141,129
39,325
64,399
29,736
9,902
19,971
10,655
13,308
51,398
3,589
59,007
208,310
71,159
35,121
281,312
85,840
15,752
8,510
148
155,207
92,344
36,912
27,105
134,043
59,963
40,584
32,416
77,602
65,261
20,061
39,000
49,682
105,727
63,830
56,663
81,375
33,494
24,709
55,386
27,841
43,791
22,279
130,090
76,724
20,920
86,611
40,979
37,248
108,495
18,129
33,974
25,617
63,456
240,193
36,990
6,742
68,448
91,980
29,928
54,391
21,832
7,063
14,751
8,536
11,564
35,433
3,578
3,557,000
......
4,492,907
4,492,907
3,384,106
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
174
616
210
104
831
254
047
025
*
459
273
109
080
396
177
120
096
229
193
059
115
147
312
189
167
240
099
073
164
082
129
066
384
227
062
256
121
110
321
054
100
076
188
710
109
020
202
272
088
161
065
021
044
025
034
105
011
100.00
150
department of Transportation, Federal Highway administration
69808307401
Table 847. HigHway Planning and conSTrucTion (20.205)

State or Territory
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed

FY 2008 Actual
734,095
396,929
691,464
412,971
3,854,261
604,493
491,850
125,504
131,924
1,698,100
1,253,200
181,653
308,836
1,222,871
888,357
454,068
426,389
545,081
653,437
185,794
516,488
591,283
1,070,258
929,458
492,047
975,558
360,911
261,995
309,683
156,214
786,650
339,493
1,551,799
1,018,654
246,116
1,233,538
610,827
459,484
1,609,937
192,487
546,505
257,026
792,320
2,985,532
307,411
160,801
863,535
777,282
443,862
762,835
294,760
5,640
45,690
7,983
116,109
20,878
Previous authority
New authority
921,028
378,448
933,354
586,619
4,287,562
653,027
573,856
190,812
188,526
2,363,476
1,609,636
198,884
335,807
1,589,509
1,181,483
563,514
501,488
778,643
770,505
207,198
734,061
750,827
1,350,580
774,591
566,495
1,080,585
421,715
362,370
356,774
210,872
1,185,629
436,507
2,010,498
1,298,386
292,411
1,615,200
737,115
539,514
1,957,137
232,358
780,510
308,888
990,559
3,993,616
366,200
197,012
1,206,762
802,574
455,493
907,210
294,303
4,874
39,485
6,899
164,933
18,043
7,840,639
Total
921,028
378,448
933,354
586,619
4,287,562
653,027
573,856
190,812
188,526
2,363,476
1,609,636
198,884
335,807
1,589,509
1,181,483
563,514
501,488
778,643
770,505
207,198
734,061
750,827
1,350,580
774,591
566,495
1,080,585
421,715
362,370
356,774
210,872
1,185,629
436,507
2,010,498
1,298,386
292,411
1,615,200
737,115
539,514
1,957,137
232,358
780,510
308,888
990,559
3,993,616
366,200
197,012
1,206,762
802,574
455,493
907,210
294,303
4,874
39,485
6,899
164,933
18,043
7,840,639
FY 2010
Percentage of
FY 2010 (estimated) distributed total
944,160
394,223
955,533
601,956
4,390,839
669,326
590,292
196,079
193,065
2,422,144
1,649,113
204,809
344,892
1,630,370
1,210,819
577,836
514,317
799,094
790,333
206,453
752,720
771,204
1,385,369
794,044
581,001
1,107,835
433,341
371,452
366,985
216,522
1,215,737
447,637
2,066,953
1,330,316
300,043
1,655,303
754,756
554,002
2,011,586
227,272
799,795
317,457
1,015,868
4,090,292
376,434
202,455
1,236,057
822,169
468,585
930,254
301,885
4,990
40,425
7,063
167,248
18,472
7,082,817
199
083
201
127
926
141
124
041
041
511
348
043
073
344
255
122
108
168
167
044
159
163
292
167
122
234
091
078
077
046
256
094
436
280
063
349
159
117
424
048
169
067
214
862
079
043
261
173
099
196
064
001
009
001
035
004
2 54,512,000
3 100.00
37,362,325
......
54,105,000
54,105,000
Total 1
1 This table also includes Budget account number 69050401401
2 For all surface transportation programs subject to reauthorization, the Budget includes placeholder funding levels for FY 2010 that do not represent Administration policy
151
department of Transportation, Federal Transit administration
698350071
Table 848. Federal TranSiT Formula granTS ProgramS (20.507)


State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
28,980
61,876
84,573
39,322
1,466,564
85,956
66,057
1,666
344,343
351,002
164,132
33,431
15,066
438,696
81,055
37,940
29,382
40,422
66,093
19,294
195,549
311,161
124,412
97,059
18,810
82,203
13,749
19,346
101,152
18,420
517,308
35,146
1,345,271
113,476
12,952
173,581
28,924
108,209
345,447
26,790
30,860
8,897
68,660
332,132
48,817
14,022
122,575
202,342
17,522
71,369
9,284
888
94,446
2,026
1 48,391
Previous
authority
17,831
4,539
49,741
1,671
160,062
15,091
96,858
15,094
1,982
40,571
35,761
7,242
2,196
21,648
23,432
4,306
9,714
5,402
6,899
453
43,971
42,650
14,243
32,695
8,459
15,488
2,588
6,341
7,869
5,046
10,438
6,192
109,974
41,309
1,435
34,862
6,579
2,470
34,274
7,341
15,798
1,364
14,082
69,502
4,966
874
56,641
27,099
4,957
10,335
529
382
519
44,994
595
New authority
68,311
74,634
148,546
41,386
1,706,324
156,195
217,181
25,461
243,011
485,957
235,439
64,279
26,463
753,668
129,734
53,073
44,115
72,770
98,539
19,797
278,595
502,076
198,500
144,624
37,037
130,233
21,848
33,158
70,694
19,486
803,120
39,883
1,978,015
149,534
15,986
271,061
56,757
117,270
549,801
42,950
60,976
16,057
105,915
564,938
85,917
8,800
188,564
291,163
29,243
119,622
13,080
578
1,416
1,745
109,318
2,003
2 68,019
Total
86,142
79,173
198,287
43,057
1,866,386
171,286
314,039
40,555
244,993
526,528
271,200
71,522
28,659
775,316
153,166
57,379
53,830
78,172
105,439
20,250
322,565
544,726
212,743
177,319
45,495
145,721
24,436
39,499
78,563
24,532
813,558
46,075
2,087,989
190,843
17,421
305,923
63,336
119,740
584,075
50,291
76,774
17,421
119,997
634,440
90,883
9,674
245,205
318,262
34,200
129,957
13,609
960
1,416
2,264
154,312
2,598
68,019
FY 2010
(estimated)
59,390
67,693
123,963
35,659
1,469,646
132,340
183,423
22,281
222,066
413,414
207,961
54,549
22,466
646,707
112,078
44,030
37,723
60,575
85,654
16,597
239,346
421,749
168,232
124,197
33,820
111,745
18,609
28,734
58,848
17,415
671,029
33,952
1,693,887
134,930
14,119
233,173
48,166
98,981
473,770
35,699
52,921
14,146
91,064
485,185
71,877
8,150
164,600
253,548
26,954
102,859
11,045
667
1,201
1,562
105,221
1,787
3 67,301
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
059
067
123
035
1459
131
182
022
220
410
206
054
022
642
111
044
037
060
085
016
238
419
167
123
034
111
018
029
058
017
666
034
1682
134
014
232
048
098
470
035
053
014
090
482
071
008
163
252
027
102
011
001
001
002
104
002
6 100.00
Total 4
8,217,044
1,207,352
11,792,867
13,000,219 5 10,138,704
1 FY 2008 Includes section 5327 Oversight takedown $48,391
2 FY 2009 Includes section 5327 Oversight takedown $68,019
3 FY 2010 Includes Estimated Section 5327 oversight takedown $67,301
4 In addition to CFDA 20507 and budget account 698350071, this table also reflects funds in CFDA 20509, 20500, 20516, 20513, 20521 and 20505 and in budget accounts
691129011, 691134011, 691134011, 691125011, 691137011, 690910110101, 690910110201 and 69113001
5 For all surface transportation programs subject to reauthorization, the Budget includes placeholder funding levels for FY 2010 that do not represent Administration policy
152
environmental Protection agency, office of water
68010301304
Table 849. caPiTalizaTion granT For clean waTer STaTe revolving FundS (66.458)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
7,686
4,114
4,643
4,496
49,159
5,499
8,421
3,374
3,374
23,202
11,622
3,374
31,087
16,565
6,204
8,748
5,321
16,624
23,337
29,555
12,634
6,193
3,374
3,516
3,374
28,088
75,867
12,405
7,765
27,226
7,042
3,374
9,985
3,622
14,067
11,953
10,715
18,582
3,374
617
447
287
358
10,335
5,324
9,303
7,556
19,056
6,869
3,374
3,374
38,695
5,553
4,615
31,417
3,374
8,965
51,950
27,806
31,380
30,392
332,276
37,163
56,916
22,808
22,808
156,825
78,552
35,982
22,808
210,120
111,967
62,879
41,936
59,130
51,073
35,964
112,366
157,738
199,766
85,392
41,858
128,794
22,808
23,763
22,808
46,429
189,853
22,808
512,801
83,849
22,808
261,547
37,535
52,483
184,033
31,196
47,595
22,808
67,491
212,348
24,480
22,808
95,080
80,794
72,424
125,601
22,808
4,171
3,018
1,939
60,595
2,421
70,336
51,950
27,806
31,380
30,392
332,276
37,163
56,916
22,808
22,808
156,825
78,552
41,306
22,808
210,120
111,967
72,182
41,936
59,130
58,629
35,964
112,366
157,738
199,766
85,392
41,858
147,850
22,808
23,763
22,808
53,298
189,853
26,182
512,801
83,849
26,182
300,242
43,088
52,483
184,033
35,811
47,595
22,808
67,491
243,765
24,480
26,182
95,080
80,794
72,424
125,601
22,808
4,171
3,018
1,939
69,560
2,421
70,336
26,306
14,080
15,890
15,389
168,254
18,818
28,820
11,549
11,549
79,411
39,776
18,220
11,549
109,398
56,696
31,840
21,235
29,942
25,862
18,211
56,899
79,874
101,155
43,240
21,195
65,217
11,549
12,033
11,549
23,510
96,135
11,549
259,668
42,458
11,549
132,439
19,007
26,576
93,188
15,797
24,101
11,549
34,175
107,526
12,396
11,549
48,146
10,911
36,673
63,600
11,549
12,554
9,084
5,835
30,684
7,286
48,000
Total
541,605
147,475
4,658,087
4,805,562
2,373,000
FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
111
059
067
065
709
079
121
049
049
335
168
077
049
461
239
134
089
126
109
077
240
337
426
182
089
275
049
051
049
099
405
049
1094
179
049
558
080
112
393
067
102
049
144
453
052
049
203
046
155
268
049
053
038
025
129
031
202
100.00
153
environmental Protection agency, office of water
68010301304
Table 850. caPiTalizaTion granT For drinking waTer STaFe revolving FundS (66.468)

State or Territory
FY 2008 Actual
Previous
authority
New authority
Total
FY 2010
(estimated)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Indian Tribes
Undistributed
Administrative Set Aside
4,203
13,765
11,387
8,738
67,105
14,114
14,983
14,235
13,889
23,799
22,644
8,229
8,146
33,226
*
2,869
3,528
14,946
11,290
8,146
6,260
20,342
8,226
3,289
2,357
15,524
2,430
8,139
8,146
5,919
17,176
8,229
35,899
24,206
1
24,421
1,698
28,462
8,229
8,031
8,146
7,745
126,097
8,085
1,868
2,005
32,313
8,174
2,623
8,146
*
1,180
*
8,472
2,548
2,536
8,146
10,148
11,540
15,816
8,146
8,146
8,146
27,414
24,421
8,146
8,146
24,632
24,632
69,904
30,929
200,855
43,392
24,632
24,632
24,632
111,253
69,191
24,632
24,632
100,470
34,373
30,686
24,632
25,832
34,896
24,632
33,894
65,958
85,206
44,350
24,632
47,826
24,632
24,632
24,632
24,632
54,511
24,632
109,658
82,896
24,632
73,845
39,766
36,020
82,966
24,632
24,632
24,632
25,564
202,937
24,632
24,632
26,225
52,808
24,632
47,685
24,632
610
2,683
2,310
24,632
2,525
37,834
3,000
24,632
24,632
69,904
30,929
200,855
43,392
32,778
24,632
24,632
111,253
69,191
24,632
24,632
100,470
34,373
40,834
24,632
25,832
46,436
24,632
33,894
65,958
85,206
44,350
24,632
63,642
24,632
32,778
32,778
32,778
54,511
24,632
109,658
110,310
24,632
98,266
39,766
36,020
82,966
24,632
24,632
24,632
25,564
202,937
24,632
32,778
26,225
52,808
24,632
47,685
24,632
610
2,683
2,310
32,778
2,525
37,834
3,000
11,463
9,248
18,574
13,995
86,510
16,404
9,248
9,248
9,248
30,197
21,853
9,248
9,248
34,909
15,426
15,788
11,315
13,350
17,477
9,248
14,350
17,241
28,092
15,520
9,625
17,876
9,248
9,248
9,248
9,248
19,757
9,248
60,936
24,253
9,248
29,716
11,491
9,248
27,097
9,248
9,248
9,248
10,278
58,775
9,248
9,248
15,678
23,611
9,248
15,944
9,248
9,248
20,400
8,000
Total
756,164
138,215
2,504,028
2,642,243
939,367

FY 2010
Percentage of
distributed total
122
098
198
149
921
175
098
098
098
321
233
098
098
372
164
168
120
142
186
098
153
184
299
165
102
190
098
098
098
098
210
098
649
258
098
316
122
098
288
098
098
098
109
626
098
098
167
251
098
170
098
098
217
085
1
100.00
9. LEVERAGING THE POWER OF TECHNOLOGy TO

TRANSFORM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Greater transparency, accountability, and public participation are central to the Presidents open Government
agenda. These principles will allow the American people
to have a stronger role in how their Government addresses the challenges we confront as a Nation. New technology has the potential to drive innovation in Government
by making it possible to connect Government employees
to one another and to the American people, thereby enabling the sharing of information and expertise, and the
solving of problems in new and more effective ways.
The Presidents Budget invests resources to support
these goals, coordinated with policies that emphasize
sound investments of taxpayer dollars, assure information security, and protect individual privacy. As such,
Federal information policies will focus on:
Fulfilling the Presidents pledge for a more transparent, participatory, and collaborative Government
through the adoption of innovative web 2.0 technologies;
Modernizing and improving the effectiveness of Government services through the adoption of modern information technology (IT) systems;
Securing Federal systems and national information infrastructure against natural and malicious
threats;
Saving taxpayer dollars by improving the IT investment planning process through leveraging investments for wider use across Federal agencies, eliminating duplicative and poorly managed projects, and
streamlining IT procurement.
The 2010 Budget reflects the growing responsibilities
for Federal IT management. Leadership for IT management is assigned to the Federal Chief Information Officer
(CIO) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The history of this position goes back to the Information
Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (ClingerCohen Act), which created Federal department and agency chief information officers to plan and manage agency
information resources and better achieve program missions. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Federal
Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA),
E-Government Act of 2002, and the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) all
contribute to the requirements for managing Federal IT.
GOVERNMENT 2.0
TransparencyThe Administration is dedicated to
making more Federal data available to the public in more
usable forms. To further this priority, USASpending.gov
is being reoriented, and the Data.gov initiative will be
launched.
USASpending.gov. On his first full day in office, the
President issued a memorandum to the heads of Federal
agencies emphasizing that greater openness and transparency is critical to strengthening our democracy and promoting efficiency and effectiveness in Government. Full
implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability
and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) is a
cornerstone of these efforts, and the Administration is
committed to achieving the Acts goals.
At USASpending.gov, citizens will be able to see how,
when, with whom, and on what the Government is spending taxpayer funds, and whether or not that money is delivering results. Visitors to the site will be able to download data and related information from USASpending.gov
to combine into different data sets, conduct analysis and
research, or power new information-based products and
businesses. In sum, citizens will be able to track spending
and results, participate in holding the Government and
recipients of funding accountable for performance, and

use the resulting information to create value for themselves and others.
Data.gov. The Federal CIO Council is creating Data.
gov, an online repository for access to Government data
(not otherwise subject to valid privacy, security, or privilege restrictions, consistent with Federal law). Through
information presented in downloadable formats on topics such as the environment, energy, health care, and the
operations of Government, Data.gov has the potential to
drive innovation in the public and private sector. Just as
Internet mapping industries developed from the release
of public geographic locational information, data transparency can spur economic, scientific, and educational
innovation.
Recovery.gov. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (Recovery Act) is an extraordinary effort to jumpstart
our economy, create and save millions of jobs, and put a
down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges
so the country can thrive. To give the public a thorough
understanding of how and where Recovery Act funds are
invested, the Act itself provides for unprecedented levels
of transparency and accountability so that citizens will
155
156
be able to know how, when, and where their tax dollars

are being spent. Recovery.gov is the main vehicle for
that transparency, giving people the tools to monitor the
progress of the Recovery Act, track contracts and Federal
grants to an unprecedented degree, and provide feedback on the status and results of those investments at
the community level. At the continually evolving website,
citizens have the opportunity to download program data
and related information, conduct analysis and research,
or power new information-based products and businesses.
Participation and CollaborationThe Administration
believes that public engagement enhances the
Governments effectiveness and improves the quality of
its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed throughout
society, and the Nation benefits when all levels of government have access to that dispersed knowledge. To offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in
policymaking and to provide their Government with the
benefits of the publics collective expertise and informa-
tion, the Federal IT agenda is focused on helping agencies use developing technologies to inform the work of
Government.
Web 2.0 in Government. Agencies will be called upon
to take creative action in developing new approaches to
citizen involvement, including the utilization of social
and visual technologies, such as Web 2.0 tools. Existing
Government websites need to be revitalized with community-driven features and functionality. Opportunities
for engagement can be developed through context-driven
tools that push opportunities for participation to people
on the websites and in other daily contexts. This will enable interactions and applications that were never before
possible. Through social media, individuals will be able
to increase collaboration on web content to create, organize, edit or comment, combine, and share information using Web 2.0 technologies and forms, including syndicated
web feeds, video-sharing, podcasts, social networking and
bookmarking, widgets, virtual worlds, and micro-blogs.1
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGy POLICy

Government IT WorkforceWith rapid advances in
IT, improved program performance depends heavily on
those who manage the IT projects. Qualified project managers and an IT workforce with the necessary competencies are needed for agency investments to be well planned
and managed. In 2009, an IT Workforce Assessment
Survey will be developed from which a gap analysis will
evolve, and agencies can adjust plans to improve their
workforce staffing and skills. The table below provides a
summary of the latest available data on agency progress
toward hiring goals.
Policies in agencies seeking to increase the assignment
of qualified project managers to major IT investments continue to be in effect. In the 2009 Budget, as reported on
agencies Exhibit 53 IT spending summaries, 88 percent
of major IT investments have qualified project managers,
an increase from approximately 83 percent in the prior
year. Going forward, agency performance in addressing
skill gaps will continue to be important contributors to the
success of Federal IT investments, meaning that recruitment and training will need to be enhanced, through enhancements in IT systems and programs of recruitment,
innovative and flexible training arrangements, and other
programs addressing the need to bring the best IT ideas
Table 91. THe Federal iT workForce
Positions Filled
30-Jun-08
Current
Enterprise Architecture
1,670
1,673
Solutions Architecture
1,472
1,457
IT Security
8,449
8,407
IT Project Management
6,061
6,248
Total .....................................................................
17,652
17,785
and expertise to bear on how Federal IT systems are designed and managed
Securing Government SystemsAs the Federal
Information Security Management Act of 2002 enters its
seventh year, it is clear that agencies and departments
are not yet secure. The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) continues to find security weaknesses at agencies.2 The Nation cannot continue to ignore this threat.
In response, the President initiated a 60-day review of the
plans, programs, and activities underway throughout the
Government that address our communications and information infrastructure. The purpose of the review is to develop a strategic framework to integrate, resource, and coordinate initiatives in this area both within the Executive
Branch and with Congress and the private sector.
OMB will work with agencies, IGs, CIOs, Senior Agency
Officials for Privacy, GAO, and the Congress to strengthen the Federal Governments IT security and privacy
programs. As part of those activities, OMB will:
Review Agency Business Cases. Part 7 (Exhibit 300)
of OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to submit
a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case Justification for major information technology investments.
In their justification, agencies must answer a series
of security questions and describe how the investment meets the requirements of the FISMA, OMB
policy, and NIST guidelines. The justifications are
then evaluated against specific criteria to determine
whether the systems cyber-security, planned or in
place, is appropriate.
1 See Godwin, Bev, Matrix of Web 2.0 Technology and Government, USA.gov
and Web Best Practices, GSA Office of Citizen Services, http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/documents/Web_Technology_Matrix.pdf.
2 GAO, High Risk Update, GAO-08-271.
9. LEVERAGING THE POWER OF TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSFORM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Evaluate Reported Security Metrics. OMB will review the security metrics provided by agencies in
their quarterly and annual reports for FISMA compliance. Modifications in metrics may be necessary
to improve security. One goal for new metrics would
be to move beyond periodic compliance reporting to
more continuous approach.
Review Current Cyber-Security Activities. The President has requested a 60-day review of all cyber-security activities within the Federal Government.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD12)This directive, issued August 27, 2004, and entitled
Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal
Employees and Contractors, addressed the recommendation
of the September 11th Commission to improve the security
of Federal facilities and information systems. In accordance
with HSPD-12, agencies are required to follow specific technical standards and business processes for the issuance of
Federal credentials including a standardized background
investigation to verify employees and contractors identities.
The directive applies to individuals with long-term access to
Federal facilities and information systems.
HSPD-12 credentials provide for digital signature, encryption, archiving of documents, multi-factor authentication, and reduced sign-on to improve security and facilitate
information sharing. They also provide for a very high level
of trust in identity credentials during disaster response, disaster recovery, and reconstitution of Government scenarios.
As of March 1, 2009, more than 2.7 million credentials
(48 percent) have been issued to the Federal workforce
and 3.3 million background investigations (58 percent)
have been completed. Additionally, 20 credential issuance infrastructures are in operation nationwide to issue credentials, and 37 providers and 416 products are
on the Approved Products and Services list maintained
by GSA. The current focus of agencies is on completing
the issuance of credentials to their remaining employees
and contractors, and implementing plans to leverage the
electronic capabilities of the credentials.
To support this effort, the Federal Identity, Credential,
and Access Management (ICAM) segment architecture
provides Federal agencies with a consistent approach
for managing the vetting and credentialing of individuals requiring access to Federal information systems and
facilities. By using enterprise architecture techniques
this alignment will provide clarity and interoperability to
eliminate redundancies across agency ICAM initiatives.
Current efforts are underway to develop the ICAM segment architecture to unify Federal Public Key Infrastructure
157
(PKI), the E-Authentication program, and HSPD-12 implementation into a single program activity, while reducing or
eliminating duplicative efforts related to identity vetting
and credentialing. One of the major outcomes of this effort
is to allow agencies to create and maintain information systems that deliver more convenience, appropriate security,
and privacy protection, with less effort and at a lower cost.
The ICAM segment architecture will serve as an important tool for providing awareness to external mission
partners and drive the development and implementation
of interoperable solutions. ICAM solutions will leverage
the existing investments in the Federal Government
while promoting efficient use of tax dollars when designing, deploying, and operating ICAM systems.
Securing the National Information Infrastructure
The Governments security concerns extend beyond Federal
systems. The Federal Government has the responsibility to
protect and defend the country and ensure the well-being
of the citizens. However, approximately 85 percent of critical information infrastructure in the United States is owned
by interests other than the Federal Government. Therefore,
industry and Government share the responsibility for the
security and reliability of the Nations information infrastructure. The Government Accountability Office has raised
concerns about the implementation of protection of the national critical information infrastructure. 3 The Federal
Government must review the current structure of public-private partnerships and determine what is working and why.
As part of the 60-day cyber review ordered by the President,
the characteristics of successful public-private partnerships
are being evaluated.
Protecting PrivacyFederal agencies are tasked to
implement breach notification plans, eliminate unnecessary collection and use of Social Security numbers in
agency programs, reduce unnecessary holdings of personally identifiable information, and develop policies outlining rules of behavior and identifying consequences and
corrective actions to address non-compliance. 4 Agencies
are expected to demonstrate progress in all aspects of
privacy protection.
The Federal Government must continue to improve information security for Federal systems and the information sector overall. This focus, along with a commitment
to ensuring privacy as investments are made in the widespread implementation of electronic health records, must
be leveraged to set a high bar for the goal of protecting
the personal information of all Americans.
IMPROVING INNOVATION, EFFICIENCy AND EFFECTIVENESS IN FEDERAL IT

Businesses facing market pressures from which the
Government is more insulated are forced to innovate,
adopting emerging technologies with agility, to achieve
maximum efficiency. Where appropriate, the Government
needs to adopt innovations with the same agility.
Optimizing Common Services and Solutions/
Cloud-Computing PlatformThe Federal technol-
ogy environment requires a fundamental reexamination of investments in technology infrastructure. The

Infrastructure Modernization Program will be taking on
3 GAO, National Cybersecurity Strategy: Key Improvements are Needed to
Strengthen the Nations Posture, GAO-09-432T.
4 OMB Memorandum M-0716, Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach
of Personally Identifiable Information.
158
new challenges and responsibilities. Pilot projects will be
implemented to offer an opportunity to utilize more fully
and broadly departmental and agency architectures to
identify enterprise-wide common services and solutions,
with a new emphasis on cloud-computing. The pilots will
test a variety of services and delivery modes, provisioning approaches, options, and opportunities that cloudcomputing brings to Federal Government. Additionally,
the multiple approaches will focus on measuring service,
cost, and performance; refining and scaling pilots to full
capabilities; and providing financial support to accelerate
migration. These projects should lead to significant savings, achieved through basic changes in future Federal
information infrastructure investment strategies and
elimination of duplicative operations at the agency level.
Cloud-computing is a convenient, on-demand model for
network access to a shared pool of configurable computing
resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications,
services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with
minimal management effort or service provider interaction. The cloud element of cloud-computing derives from
a metaphor used for the Internet, from the way it is often
depicted in computer network diagrams. Conceptually
it refers to a model of scalable, real-time, internet-based
information technology services and resources, satisfying
the computing needs of users, without the users incurring
the costs of maintaining the underlying infrastructure.
Examples in the private sector involve providing common
business applications online, which are accessed from a
web browser, with software and data stored on the cloud
providers servers.
Implementing a cloud-computing platform incurs different risks than dedicated agency data centers. Risks
associated with the implementation of a new technology
service delivery model include policy changes, implementation of dynamic applications, and securing the dynamic
environment. The mitigation plan for these risks depends
on establishing a proactive program management office to
implement industry best practices and government policies in the management of any program. In addition, the
Federal community will need to actively put in place new
security measures which will allow dynamic application
use and information-sharing to be implemented in a secure
fashion. In order to achieve these goals, pilot programs will
provide a model for scaling across the Government.
Pilots supporting the implementation of a cloud-computing environment include:
End-user communications and computingsecure provisioning, support (help desk), and operation of end-user applications across a spectrum of
devices;addressing telework and a mobile workforce.
Secure virtualized data centers, with Governmentto-Government, Government-to-Contractor, and
Contractor-to-Contractor modes of service delivery.
Portals, collaboration and messagingsecure data
dissemination, citizen and other stakeholder engagement, and workforce productivity.
Content, information, and records management

delivery of services to citizens and workforce
productivity.
Workflow and case managementdelivery of services to citizens and workforce productivity.
Data analytics, visualization,
transparency and management.
and
reporting
Enterprise Software-as-a-Servicefor example, in

financial management.
Cloud-computing will help to optimize the Federal
data facility environment and create a platform to provide services to a broader audience of customers. Another
new program, the work-at-a-distance initiative, will
leverage modern technologies to allow Federal employees to work in real time from remote locations, reducing
travel costs and energy consumption, and improving the
Governments emergency preparedness capabilities.
Cloud-computing and work-at-a-distance represent major new Government-wide initiatives, supported
by the CIO Council under the auspices of the Federal
CIO (OMBs E-Government Administrator), and funded
through the General Services Administration (GSA) as
the service-provider.
Of the investments that will involve up-front costs
to be recouped in outyear savings, cloud-computing is a
prime case in point. The Federal Government will transform its Information Technology Infrastructure by virtualizing data centers, consolidating data centers and
operations, and ultimately adopting a cloud-computing
business model. Initial pilots conducted in collaboration
with Federal agencies will serve as test beds to demonstrate capabilities, including appropriate security and
privacy protection at or exceeding current best practices,
developing standards, gathering data, and benchmarking
costs and performance. The pilots will evolve into migrations of major agency capabilities from agency computing platforms to base agency IT processes and data in the
cloud. Expected savings in the outyears, as more agencies
reduce their costs of hosting systems in their own data
centers, should be many times the original investment in
this area.
Similarly, investments to extend the use of collaborative
computing technologies across the Federal Government,
including online meeting capabilities and an increased
capacity for telework, will contribute to more efficient, effective service for the American people. Inter-agency collaboration will be enhanced as will the Presidents goal
of opening governmental business to the public. Energy
savings and environmental benefits will be important
byproducts of reduced travel, and the Government will
be better able to function smoothly in emergencies, as
remote work capabilities are made more robust.
The Federal Government also is leveraging its buying
power through the SmartBUY program, achieving cost
savings through blanket agreements with commercial
159
9. LEVERAGING THE POWER OF TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSFORM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Chart 9-1. Maturity of Segment

Architectures -- Major Agencies (*)
Completed
11.0%
In-Progress
23.0%
Notional
48.0%
Planned
18.0%
(*) 86% of segments reported from major agencies.
software providers. The GSA manages the agreements

and investigates new programs.
Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA). Working cooperatively with agency CIOs, the FEA program helps agencies to improve their enterprise architectures. These architectures describe the agency mission and the resources
needed to achieve satisfactory program performance and/
or cost savings. The Federal architecture needs to mature
through the definition, development, and implementation
of segment architectures. In February 2009, major agencies identified a total of 566 discrete segments in varying
levels of maturity ranging from Completed, In-progress,
Planned, or Notional.
A segment is a discreet portion of an overall enterprise, whether mission critical (e.g., law enforcement),
business services (e.g., financial management) or an
infrastructure-related segment. By focusing on priority
segments, agencies should produce actionable architectures that improve performance, reduce redundancies
and costs, improve information sharing, and streamline
business processes.
The National Information Exchange Model (NIEM).
NIEM is designed to develop, disseminate, and support
enterprise-wide information sharing standards and processes across the justice, public safety, emergency and
disaster management, intelligence, and homeland security enterprise at all levels and across all branches of
Government. Currently, 42 States have adopted NIEM,
mostly in law enforcement and justice-orientated applications. It is anticipated that all 50 States will participate in NIEM in less than 18 months. Due to the
success of NIEM with state and local justifications, the
program has been adopted by the Program Manager for
the Information Sharing Environment (PM-ISE) as the
basis for its work to promote law enforcement, homeland
security, and counter-terrorism information sharing. The
collaboration and extension of the NIEM environment
demonstrates significant progress for standardized, reusable information exchanges across Federal agencies.
OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL IT SPENDING
The Fiscal Year 2010 estimate of total Federal IT
spending represents a more complete accounting of IT
investments than presented in previous Budgets. The
most current 2010 estimate represents a seven percent
increase from the 2009 Budget. Forthcoming agency
summaries of IT spending will provide more complete information.
Table 92. Federal iT SPending, budgeTS oF 2008-2010
including maJor Federal iT inveSTmenTS
(investment counts, spending in millions of dollars)
2008
2009
2010
Number of Major IT Investments

All IT Investments
830
6,267
801
6,566
785
7,165
Major IT Investment Spending
35,510
36,746
40,587
All IT Investment Spending
66,405
70,716
75,829
New directions for Federal information technology

in 2009, as well as final determinations on investments
funded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
mean that estimates for spending on IT systems over
20092010 will likely change as firm plans are made
to address the Administrations goals of greater openness in Government, wider participation by citizens in
Government, and a more collaborative, cost-effective
Federal IT enterprise.
As final plans on new IT initiatives and investments
funded by the Recovery Act are implemented, new oversight approaches will be introduced to see that Federal
IT dollars are spent effectively. The need for more effec-
160
tive high-level engagement in early strategic planning

processes across agencies, and early articulation of fundamental architecture and design considerations as part
of planning decisions, will be expressed in new policies on
the management of agency IT spending. These changes
will be complemented by continued agency reporting on
major project justifications and implementation, and improvements to the process for the Federal CIO to intercede where projects are not meeting initial objectives, in
order to quickly implement remedial actions which are
timely and appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The Administration will continue to work with agencies,
Inspectors General, Chief Information Officers, the GAO,
and the Congress to strengthen the Federal Governments
IT investment planning and project execution and provide accountability for spending on information technology. The Presidents 60-day review of all cyber-security
activities within the Federal Government and a planned
directive on Open Government are part of how the new
Administration will seek to transform the management
of Federal data and information systems.
The path forward for Federal IT will make the process of Government more transparent and accountable.
At the same time, Americans will know that information
technology investments by their Government are being
leveraged to produce maximum value, and that the security of information systems nationally, and the privacy
of Americans, are being protected. Strategic investments
in IT are at the heart of the efforts to make Government
services more effective, accessible, and transparent.
10. FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL FUNDING

Table 101. Federal drug conTrol Funding, 20082010 1
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
Department/Agency
Enacted
2008
2010
Request
2009
department of defense: 2 ........................................................................................................
1,2427
1,4259
1,3836
department of education: .......................................................................................................
4298
4317
2386
department of Health and Human Services:

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 3
Indian Health Service
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 4
1700
875
1,0060
2,4458
2200
936
1,0328
2,4941
2400
988
1,0454
2,5389
Total HHS ....................................................................................................................
3,7093
3,8405
3,9231
department of Homeland Security:

Counternarcotics Enforcement
Customs and Border Protection
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
US Coast Guard
27
1,5447
3979
9895
37
2,1010
4277
1,2024
39
2,1035
4556
1,2535
Total dHS ....................................................................................................................
2,9348
3,7348
3,8165
department of the interior:

Bureau of Indian Affairs
63
63
83
department of Justice:
Bureau of Prisons
Drug Enforcement Administration
Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement
Office of Justice Programs
672
2,1267
4979
2293
792
2,1835
5150
2355
808
2,2665
5375
2780
Total doJ .....................................................................................................................
2,9211
3,0132
3,1628
office of national drug control Policy:

Operations
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program
Other Federal Drug Control Programs
264
10
2300
1643
272
30
2340
1747
276
10
2200
1740
Total ondcP ...............................................................................................................
4217
4389
4226
department of State/international affairs: 5

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
Economic Support and Development Assistance
7915
3342
1,0955
3575
1,1905
3651
Total department of State/international affairs ........................................................
1,1257
1,4530
1,5556
department of the Treasury:

Internal Revenue Service
573
592
603
department of veterans affairs:

Veterans Health Administration
4233
4375
4500
other
Priorities: 6
.....................................................................................................................
37
37
37
Total Federal drug budget ......................................................................................................
13,275.8
14,844.7
15,025.1
1 Detail
may not add due to rounding

amounts include supplemental funding The 2009 enacted includes the pending 2009 war supplemental request The 2010 request includes the war funding amount
outlays estimated by HHS actuaries based on projected State Medicaid program participation
4 Includes budget authority and funding through evaluation set-aside authorized by Section 241 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act PHS Evaluation Fund levels are as follows: $1013 million in
2008, $1105 million in 2009, and $1105 million in 2010
5 State/International Affairs amounts include supplemental funding The 2009 enacted includes the pending 2009 war supplemental request
6 Includes (1) the Small Business Administrations Drug-Free Workplace grants, and (2) the Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Drug Impaired Driving
Program
2 DOD
3 Baseline
161
11. CALIFORNIA-FEDERAL BAy-DELTA PROGRAM

BUDGET CROSSCUT (CALFED)
The California-Federal Bay-Delta program (also known
as CALFED) is a cooperative effort among the Federal
Government, the State of California, local Governments,
and water users, to proactively address the water management and aquatic ecosystem needs of Californias Central
Valley. This valley, one of the most productive agricultural
regions of the world, is drained by the Sacramento River
in the north and the San Joaquin River in the south. The
two rivers meet southwest of Sacramento, forming the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and drain west into San
Francisco Bay.
The extensive development of the areas water resources has significantly boosted agricultural production,
but has also adversely affected the regions ecosystems.
CALFED participants recognized the need to provide
a safe, clean, reliable source of water for multiple uses,
while at the same time restoring or maintaining the ecosystems of the area and protecting against floods. This
recognition resulted in the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, which
laid the foundation for the CALFED program. CALFEDs
adaptive management approach to water resources development and management seeks to balance achievement among the programs four objectives: Water Supply
Reliability, Levee System Integrity, Water Quality, and
Ecosystem Restoration. The program integrates science
and monitoring into program management to track progress toward achieving those goals. The partners signed
a Record of Decision in 2000, spelling out the different
program components and goals.
In 2004, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act (P.L.

108-361) was signed into law. This Act authorizes activities for the CALFED program through 2010, provides new
programmatic authority for participating agencies, authorizes funding to be appropriated for the Federal share
of CALFED activities, and specifies criteria for program
cost-shares and achieving balanced implementation of
CALFED program components. Federal agencies contributing to CALFED goals include: the Department of the
Interiors Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and U.S. Geological Survey; the Department of
Agricultures Natural Resources Conservation Service;
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Department
of Commerces National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA); and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The Budget includes a crosscut of estimated Federal
funding by each of the CALFED agencies, fulfilling the
reporting requirements of P.L. 108-361. Detailed tables
can be found in the CD-ROM included with the Analytical
Perspectives, as well as an explanation of budget crosscut
methodology.
In addition to the funds shown in the table, some
agencies will be allocating funding from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 toward CALFED
activities, which will augment funding provided in 2009
and 2010. Agencies final allocations of Recovery Act funds
to CALFED activities were not available at the time of
Budget production.
calFed-relaTed Federal Funding budgeT croSScuT

Bureau of Reclamation
Corps of Engineers
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NOAA Fisheries
Geological Survey
Fish and Wildlife Service
Total:
1
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 1
1998
1999
2000
15337
10067
000
030
316
094
320
11467
10334
1454
038
316
114
305
13851
9379
1285
045
432
365
5726
7975
5419
1695
055
537
1823
5338
10332
5822
3908
058
509
561
5426
7421
5783
3840
078
491
1119
2069
7574
7264
4875
078
489
1368
6278
8110
5231
3639
078
542
891
9765
9983
9129
3464
078
518
1074
3656
10134
8744
2686
050
408
753
3613
6605
5120
4090
053
373
2203
6834
11104
4654
2600
053
373
202
063
6996
7998
2150
053
373
202
063
26164
24028
31083
22842
26616
20801
27926
28256
27902
26388
25278
19049
17835
Reflects proposed 2010 Budget
163

Crosscutting

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Crosscutting

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CROSSCUTTING PROGRAMS

3. HOMELAND SECURITy FUNDING ANALySIS

sponse to natural disasters and Coast Guard search and

Table 31. Homeland SecuriTy Funding by agency

Total, Homeland Security budget authority .....................................................................................

Less Department of Defense

non-defense Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ............................................................

Less Fee-Funded Homeland Security Programs

net non-defense discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ..............................

net non-defense discretionary Homeland Security ba , including bioShield ..............................

is that the Presidents highest priority is to keep the

or mission area estimates over time based on additional

Data Collection Methodology and Adjustments

Table 32. PrevenT and diSruPT TerroriST aTTackS

Total, Prevent and disrupt Terrorist attacks ....................................................

3. HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING ANALYSIS

rorist activity before it manifests itself in an attack so

funding for border and transportation security activities

Table 33. ProTecT THe american PeoPle, our criTical

Total, Protect the american People, our critical infrastructure,

the development of medical countermeasures, such as

ing and executing infrastructure protection activities at

Table 34. reSPond To and recover From incidenTS Funding

Total, respond To and recover From incidents ........................

3. HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING ANALYSIS

such as Hurricane Katrina and chemical or oil spills,

4 Source: National Association of Counties, Homeland Security Funding2003 State

There is also a diversity of responses in the businesses

Table 35. diScreTionary Fee-Funded Homeland SecuriTy acTiviTieS by agency

Total, discretionary Homeland Security Fee-Funded activities ................................

3. HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING ANALYSIS

Table 36. mandaTory Homeland SecuriTy Funding by agency

Total, Homeland Security mandatory Programs ..........................

Table 37. baSeline eSTimaTeS -- ToTal Homeland SecuriTy Funding by agency

Total, Homeland Security budget authority ............................................................

non-defense Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ....................................

net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioShield ....

net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, including bioShield .....

obligations limitations ..............................................................................................

Table 38. Homeland SecuriTy Funding by budgeT FuncTion

Total, Homeland Security budget authority ............................................................................

non-defense Homeland Security ba. .......................................................................................

net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba. .......................................................

Table 39. baSeline eSTimaTeSHomeland SecuriTy Funding by budgeT FuncTion

Total, Homeland Security budget authority .............................................................................

non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioshield ............................

net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, excluding bioshield .....................

net non-defense, discretionary Homeland Security ba, including bioShield ......................

4. STRENGTHENING FEDERAL STATISTICS

interagency Standard Occupational Classification Policy

4. STRENGTHENING FEDERAL STATISTICS

Table 41. 20082010 budgeT auTHoriTy For PrinciPal STaTiSTical agencieS1

Bureau of Economic Analysis

Economic Research Service

Reflects any cancellations

5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

I. PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

11-percent increase from the 2008 enacted level of $10.7

R&D Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Healthy Lives for All Americans

The 2010 Budget sustains the Department of Defenses

II. FEDERAL R&D DATA

5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

and regardless of where title to the property may rest.